Skip to content


The Sales Tax Officer, I Circle, Alleppey and anr Vs. Modern Plastic Industries, Neerkunan, Alleppey-5. (Writ Appeal No. 160 of 1973 and O.P. No. 654 of 1970). S. V. Pai, S/O. Sreenivasa Pai, Proprietor of M/S. Pai and Co., Broadway, Ernakulam V. Sales Tax Officer, I Circle, Ernakulam and ors. (O.P. No. 1709 of 1974). - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 160 of 1973 and O.P. No. 654 of 1970, 1709 of 1974
Reported in(1976)5CTR(Ker)0108B
AppellantThe Sales Tax Officer, I Circle, Alleppey and anr
RespondentModern Plastic Industries, Neerkunan, Alleppey-5. (Writ Appeal No. 160 of 1973 and O.P. No. 654 of 1
Excerpt:
- .....prescribed time for registration under the act. the time prescribed under rule 5 of the central sales tax (registration and turnover) rules, 1957, is one month. on such registration the benefit of a concessional rate of assessment to a dealer, who in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer, certain classes of goods, is provided for in section 8(1) and section 8(3) of the act. these sections may conveniently be reproduced.'8. rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. - (1) every dealer, who in the course of inter-state trade or commerce :-(a) sells to the government any goods; or(b) sells to a registered dealer other than the government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under.....
Judgment:

Gopalan Nambiyar, J. - We think the learned Judge was right in his view that there was nothing in Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957, to warrant an interpretation that the goods sought to be included in the Certificate of Registration must have been intended for use in an existing business. The learned Government Pleader sought to make out that this requirement was necessary, by linking section 7 of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 for short, the Act-with Rule 13 of the Registration and Turnover Rules and Form A prescribing for application for a Certificate of Registration under section 7, to section 8(3) of the Act. Section 7 imposes an obligation on every dealer liable to pay tax under the Act to apply within the prescribed time for registration under the Act. The time prescribed under Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is one month. On such registration the benefit of a concessional rate of assessment to a dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer, certain classes of goods, is provided for in section 8(1) and section 8(3) of the Act. These sections may conveniently be reproduced.

'8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce :-

(a) sells to the Government any goods; or

(b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be Three percent of his turnover.

xx

xx

xx

(3) The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) :-

(a) xx xx xx

(b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of the registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power;

(c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale;

(d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (b) or for the packing of any containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (c)'.

2. It appears to us that sections 8(1) and (3) contemplated a situation and refer to a state quite different from what is envisaged by section 7 read with Rule 13 and the application in the form prescribed, viz., Form A. Once it is found - as it in fact has been found in the instant case - that the dealer is entitled to a Certificate of Registration, the limited scope of enquiry which survives in the instant case for the purpose of section 8(3) of the Act appears to us to be as to whether the goods in question were intended for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. On that point, we are in agreement with the learned Judge that there is no justification for importing into the section or the Rule that the goods must have been intended for use in an existing business. In this particular case the respondent petitioner sought to get moulds and machines and other equipments included in the Certificate of Registration. The respondent was carrying on a business in the manufacture of plastic products such as buckets, basins, containers, mugs, plates etc. The Sales Tax Officer declined to get moulds and machines included in the certificate of Registration, and granted registration in respect of the rest of articles specified in the application. He gave no reason in support of his action (vide Ext. P5). On revision, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld the decision of the Sales Tax Officer, and took the view that a registered dealer who had no manufacture or processing business on the date of the application for registration is not entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of tax under section 8 even if he intends to start a business in future. It was this view that was upset by the learned Judge on a writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner.

3. For reasons stated earlier, we are in agreement with the learned Judge. We dismiss this appeal, but in the circumstances, without costs.

4. Issue carbon copy to counsel.

O.P. No. 1709 of 1974.

This O.P. raised the same question as in Writ Appeal No. 160 of 1973. The petitioners request to amend the Certificate of Registration by including certain articles of machinery specified in Ext. P2, was declined on the ground that the dealer must have a pre-existing manufacturing or processing business. We have found in the judgment in W.A. 160 of 1973 that there is no warrant for the importing this requirement. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, quash Exts. P3, P4 and P5 orders, and direct the 1st respondent to deal with the petitioners application (Ext. P1) afresh in accordance with the law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment, and the other judgment, in Writ Appeal 160 of 1973. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //