SHANMUGHA VILAS CASHEW FACTORY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Tax Revision Case are a firm with their Head Office at Quilon, in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State and with a depot at Perintalmanna in the Malabar area. For the assessment year 1953-54 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Perintalmanna, inspected their accounts and found that they had purchased in that year cashewnuts worth Rs. 13,11,206-6-0 through their agent C. V. Francis. The assessees represented to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer that the goods were given delivery to them at Trichur, in the Travancore-Cochin area by their agent and that they had already been assessed to sales tax on this amount by the Sales Tax Authorities of the Travancore-Cochin State. They also produced a copy of the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Quilon. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was of opinion that the turnover was assessable to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and issued notice to the petitioners proposing to assess them on the whole turnover. At this stage the assessees and their purchasing agent, C. V. Francis, filed a statement that cashewnutes worth Rs. 6,40,561-9-0 were purchased from the erstwhile Malabar District and cashewnuts worth Rs. 6,70,644-13-0 were purchased from the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. On the basis of This the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer held that the turnover of Rs. 6,40,561-9-0 relating to purchases effected within the Madras State was liable to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and assessed the petitioners on that turnover. The; petitioners filed an appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer, Palghat, which was rejected by him.

(2.) Against the above decision of the Commercial Tax Officer, Palghat, Tribunal Appeal No. 38 of 1957 was filed before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivaudrum. It was contended before the Tribunal, that the turnover of Rs. 6,40,561-9-0 relating to purchases alleged to have been effected in the Madras State, was not liable to be taxed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The contention of the petitioners was that these purchases were made by their agent, C. V. Francis and the goods were delivered to the petitioners at Trichur in the Travancore-Cochin area and hence the sales were completed in the Travancore-Cochin area. But the Tribunal held that the goods were purchased and taken delivery of by the petitioners in Madras State itself through their Commission Agent and so the sales were completed within that State.

(3.) Then it was further urged by the petitioners that the same purchases were included in the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, Quilon, for the same year and hence the same transactions could not be taxed over again by the Sales Tax Authorities in Perinthalmanna. This argument did not find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed this contention with the observation that the fact that the Travancore-Cochin State Sales Tax Authorities have wrongly assessed the petitioners to tax in respect of the turnover was no reason why they should not be assessed to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal also observed that if there was double taxation, the remedy of the petitioners was to get the assessment made by the Travancore-Cochin State Authorities revised. In that view the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Taxing Authorities and dismissed the appeal.