CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LIMITED CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LIMITED POLLIBETTA ANIL KUMAR BHANDARI Vs. COFFEE BOARD :UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the growers of coffee. They filed writ petitions for injuncting the Coffee Board Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') from making any payment under the head "purchase tax" out of the Pool Fund maintained under Section 30 of the Coffee Act, 1942. According to the appellants, the Board cannot discharge its liability in respect of payment of "purchase tax" to the State government, under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') out of the Pool Fund.

(2.) The High Court held that growers/producers were not liable under Section 5 (3 (a) of the Act to pay the tax in respect of the sale of coffee bythem to the Coffee Board. It also held that the Board was liable to pay the "purchase tax" under Section 6 of the Act. But according to the High court, the Board was authorised in law to pay the tax which it is liable to pay to the State government, out of the Pool Fund. On that finding, the writ petitions, filed on behalf of the appellants, were dismissed.

(3.) Section 5 (3 (a) of the Act provides that the tax under the Act shall be levied in the case of sale of goods mentioned in Column 2 of the Second Schedule to that Act by the first or the earliest of the successive dealers in the State who is liable to tax under the said section, on the taxable turnover of sale of such dealer in each year relating to such goods. The coffee is included in Entry 43 of the Second Schedule in the Act. The expression 'dealer' has been defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act. The relevant portion of the definition along with exception is as follows: