COTTANAD PLANTATIONS LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of five revisions are at the instance of the same assessee - a public limited company engaged in the cultivation of tea and rubber in its own plantations. The assessee is a small unit. It does not engage itself in processing green tea leaves into manufactured tea. It is selling green tea leaves as such. It is also selling the rubber produced in its plantation both locally and inter state. We are concerned with the assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1979-80,1980-81,1981 -82 and 1982-83 and with the Central Sales Tax assessments for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

(2.) The sole question that arose for consideration before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether the green tea leaves grown by the assessee is an agricultural produce and cannot form part of the turnover. The submission was that the word "tea" occurring in Explanation (1) to S.2(xxi) and Explanation (1) to S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act can only be manufactured tea. The Appellate Tribunal negatived this plea. In the Central Sales Tax assessments, a further plea was taken that the assessee is not a dealer. This plea was also negatived by the Appellate' Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the matter by a common order dated 23-7-1990. Aggrieved by the said common order passed against the assessee, it has come up in revisions.

(3.) We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner/assessee, Mr. K.C. Balagangadharan. A common plea was put forward in all the revisions to the effect that the green tea leaves grown by the revision-petitioner is not tea within the meaning of Explanation. (1) to S.2(xxi) and Explanation (1) to S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act. If that be so, the green tea leaves grown by the assessee is agricultural produce and cannot form part of the turnover. We are unable to accept this plea. In Varkey v. A.I.T. & Rural Sales Tax Officer [(1954) 5 S.T.C. 348], M.S. Menon, J. (as he then was) held thus, at page 351: