NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions arising for consideration in these writ petitions, except those pertaining to the prayer in O. P. 4057/1988 for the issuance of a direction to complete the assessments and the prayer in O. P. 4897/88 for a direction to dispose of the appeals expeditiously, are identical with the points dealt with and rejected by my brother K. A. Nair, J. as is seen from the judgment in O. P. 4374 of 1984. With respect I agree with the views expressed by K. A. Nair, J. and therefore the questions require to be answered against the petitioner.

(2.) HOWEVER the counsel for the petitioners argued that the assessment orders under Challenge is liable to be quashed in view of the Division bench ruling of this court in Deputy Commr of Sales Tax v. Keveyam & Co. (1986 (63) S. T. C. 387 ). To appreciate this argument it is necessary to refer to the admitted fact namely, that the turnover sought to be assessed represents the value of the goods transported to other States on consignment basis.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has no case that the legislature is not competent to enact a law on the subject purchase tax. If that be the position the legislature is equally competent to exercise power in respect of subsidiary or ancillary matter of preventing evasion of tax. S. 8 considered in this background prevents evasion of tax because it helps determination of the situs of the last purchases. THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the legislature is not competent to enact S. 8 therefore is liable to be rejected. It should in this connection be remembered that K. ANair, J. after elaborately considering this aspect has arrived at the same conclusion.