LexM/S. COCHIN PORT TRUST versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 343
MIS. COCHIN PORT TRUST
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Civil Appeal No.1906 of 2007)
APRIL 22, 2015
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, R.K. AGRAWAL AND
ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963 -
s. 2(viii) -
Dealer -
Exigibility to sales tax - Port trust, statutory
authority constituted for rendering port services - Engaged
A
B
c
in the activity of dealing in scrap items, in the nature of
sale transactions besides its statutory functions - Port trust-
D
Assessee, whether a dealer under the Act and liable to pay
sales tax - Held: Activity carried out by the assessee-Port
Trust fall within the meaning of "dealer" u/s. 2(viii) and thus,
assessable to tax under the Act - Major Port Trusts Act,
1963.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Definition of dealer under the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is an inclusive definition F
whereby wide range of persons has been placed under
the ambit of "dealer". It includes persons involved in
carrying on any business or trading activity and
transactions effected by them whether in the course of
business or not. [Para 14] [351-D-E]
G
1.2 It is pertinent to notice that the Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was amended by Act 22
of 2002 whereby explanation (3) was added to
343
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 4 S.C.R.
A definition clause 2(g) of the TN Act. By the said
amendment the Madras Port Trust has now been
declared as a dealer under the TN Act. Explanation (3)
states that if the port trust disposes of any goods
including unclaimed or confiscated or unserviceable or
B scrap surplus, old or obsolete goods or discarded
material or waste products whether by auction or
otherwise directly or through an agent for cash or for
deferred payment or for any other valuable
consideration, notwithstanding anything contained in
C the TNGST Act, it shall be deemed to be a dealer for
the purpose of the Act. Therefore, by amendment act
the legislature has specifically brought in Port Trust
also within the definition of "dealer" u/s. l{g} and thus,
0
the substratum of the judgment in *Madras Port Trust
case has been lost. [Para 22] [357-B-E]
1.3 The activities of the assessee in respect of
buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods,
executing works contract, transferring the right to use
E any goods or supplying by way of or as part of any
service, any goods directly or otherwise, whether for
cash or for deferred payment or for commission,
remuneration or other valuable consideration, whether
F in course of business or not, would fall Within the
purview of Section 2(viii) of the Act. Thus, the
assessee-Port Trust would fall within the meaning of
"dealer" under Section 2(viii) of the Act and is
consequently assessable to tax under the Act. The
G judgment and the order passed by the High Court is
upheld. [Paras 24, 26] [358-D-F; 359-A]
*State of T.N. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of
Madras 1999 (2) SCR 195; CST v. Sai Publication Fund
H 2002 (2) SCR 743: (2002) 4 SCC 57 - distinguished.
COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA
345
Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam v. Hindustan A
Urban Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 735 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
1999 (2) SCR 195 Distinguished.
Para 19, 20
(2015) 3 sec 735 Referred to.
Para 14
2002 (2) SCR 743
Distinguished.
Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1906 of 2007.
B
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in TRC No. 412 of 2002. 0
V. Giri. C. N. Sree Kumar, Sudha Shankar, Amit Sharma
for the Appellant.
Liz Mathew, M. F. Philip for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
H.L. DAT=TU, CJI. 1. This appeal is directed against
the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala .
at Ernakulam in TRC No. 412 of 2002 and Sales Tax
Revision Nos. 321 and 326 of 2005, dated 23.12.2005,
F
whereby and whereunder, the High Court has held that the
appellant-assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General
Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act") and dismissed the
tax revision preferred by the appellant-assessee.
G
2. The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the appellant-Trust is a dealer under the
Act and liable to pay sales tax under the Act on account of
certain activities in the nature of sale transactions carried on H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 4 S.C.R.
A by it besides its statutory functiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.