DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX QUILON Vs. MIDLAND RUBBER AND PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High court of Kerala dated 19/07/1965, in Tax Revision Case No. 8 of 1964.

(2.) The respondent, the Midland Rubber and Produce Company Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as "the company", is a public limited company engaged in the business of planting and growing rubber trees and converting the latex obtained from the trees into rubber sheets and regularly selling the rubber sheets thus produced by them. The company is a registered dealer under section 7 of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of of 1956) , hereinafter referred to as "the Act". For the year 1961-62, the company returned in Form II an aggregate gross turnover of Rs. 11,43,140. 49 claiming exemption on the entire turnover. The company also filed C Forms covering an aggregate turnover of Rs. 11,03,934.10. By his order dated 29/09/1962, the Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Alleppey, assessed the company on a net turnover of Rs. 11,04,268.96.

(3.) The company took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Trivandrum, and contended that though the company had sold rubber and tea produced in their own estate, they were not dealers within the definition of that term in the Act and that no tax could be levied in respect of the sales. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal by his order dated 16/12/1962. The respondents preferred a second appeal before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate tribunal in Appeal No. 72 of 1963. By its order dated 1/01/1964, the Appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the company was not. a dealer and the inter-State sales of rubber were not taxable under the Act. The appellants thereupon filed Tax Revision Case No. 8 of 1964 before the High court of Kerala and challenged the correctness of the decision of the Appellate tribunal. By its order dated 19/07/1965, the High court dismissed the tax revision case holding that the respondent-company was not a dealer as defined in section 2 (b) of the Act and followed its previous decision in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd.