LexM/S. PADINJAREKARA AGENCIES LIMITED versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... -+ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 641 M/S. PADINJAREKARA AGENCIES LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA (Civil Appeal Nos. 5700-5712 of 2007) FEBRUARY 8, 2008 (S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.) A B Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Exemption Notification No. SRO 1003191 as replaced by Notification SRO , No.1727193: C Exemption Notification - Centrifuged latex and field latex - Exigibility to Sales Tax and applicability of Notification - Held: Exigibility to tax is different from concept of concession/ exemption - Rules of interpretation applicable to classification of items in a taxing statute differ in appropriate cases from b terms and conditions of an Exemption Notification - Exemption Notification has to be interpreted on its own terms - In the instant case, High Court while denying exemption on the ground of classification failed to notice that the issue was not classification of goods but interpretation of the Notification E - Circulars/orders denying the exemption not binding on assessee - Hence, de-hors the instructions in the Circular, assessee could claim exemption on the basis of the Notification if it satisfies terms and conditions thereof - Matter remitted to High Court for de novo consideration in accordance F with law - Interpretation of Statutes - Notifications - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Appellant-assessee, a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, was engaged in the production of centrifuged latex. G Assessee claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification, . SRO No. 1003/91 which was subsequently replaced by another Notification SRO No. 1727/93. Under the Notification, the conditions for availing exemptions were 641 H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A that rubber should be used for manufacture of "goods" and that tax was leviable on the products manufactured by using such rubber. The Assessing Authority relying on a Circular No./6/98 dated 18/05/1998, did not allow the benefit of exemption to the assessee on the ground that B centrifuged latex and field latex were one and the same commodity. Appeal filed thereagainst was allowed by the appellate authority holding that the centrifuged latex satisfied the definition of "goods" in terms of the Notification and, therefore, concessional rate was c admissible to the assessee. However, in the connected matter the first appellate authority held that the field latex is not a rubber product and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under the Notification. Appeal filed against the order of the first Appellate Authority was 0 rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that field latex and centrifuged latex were two separate and distinct commodities. Revision Petitions were preferred by the assessee before the High Court. The High Court held that since raw-rubber and centrifuged latex are one and the same commodity, the assessee was not entitled to claim ~ concessional rate of duty under the Notificaiion. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the earlier case of Kurian Abraham Pvt. F Ltd. the Department had taken the view that field latex and centrifuged latex were two different and distinct commodities whereas, in th9 present case, the Department has taken the view that they were one and . the same commodity. Therefore, in the matter of exigibility G to tax, the Department took the stand that field latex and centrifuged latex were different commodities anci when it came to the question of exemption/concession, the same Department contended that the two commodities were same. (Para - 7) [646-A, B] H +" .... M/S. PADINJAREKARAAGENCIES LIMITED v. STATE 643 OF KERALA State of Kera/a & Ors. v. Mis. Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. & A Anr 2008 (2) SCALE 341 - relied on. 1.2 Exigibility to tax is different from the concept of exemption/concession. The rules of interpretation which apply to classification of items in a taxing statute can differ 8 in appropriate cases from the terms and conditions of exemption notification. Interpretation adopted in a classification dispute need not be the same as interpretation of Exemption Notification under the same Act. Every Exemption Notification has to be read on its own terms. One cannot confuse the terms used in the C Notification by comparing the language of the Notification with the language of the taxing statute. In the present case, the Gov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.