RUBBERIND ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee in this case claims the benefit of S. R. O. No. 1003 of 1991. But, according to the department, this notification has been superseded by S. R. O. No. 372 of 1992 and this has been upheld by the Tribunal. THE question to be considered is whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of S. R. O. No. 1003 of 1991. S. R. O. No. 1003 of 1991 is a notification issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It reads as follows : In exercise of the powers under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Government hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods specified below payable by persons or units with regard to their turnover, subject to the conditions and restrictions specified therein. THE goods involved in this case is rubber. That is referred as third item in the notification which is as follows : " Tax on the purchase of rubber by small-scale industrial units in the State for use in the manufacture of goods subject to the condition that tax under the said Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) is levied on the products manufactured by such rubber. "

(2.) THE case of the assessee is that it is a small-scale industrial unit. Its further case is that rubber products are used in the manufacture of goods. Its further case is that goods have been taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. So the assessee says that it has complied with all the conditions as per clause 3 of the notification, S. R. O. No. 1003 of 1991. THE Government issued another notification, S. R. O. No. 372/92, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and in supersession of various Government orders mentioned therein. But, this particular Notification, S. R. O. No. 1003/91 is not mentioned thereunder. Further what is done in the subsequent notification is that a reduction in the rate of tax is given on the purchase of rubber to manufacturers for use in the manufacture of tyre, tubes, flaps within the State. On a reading of S. R. O. No. 372/92, we are of the view that S. R. O. No. 1003/91 is not superseded. Hence, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of S. R. O. No. 1003/91. But, after the publication of S. R. O. No. 1727/93 certain changes have been made. But we are not concerned with that in this case. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. THE assessing authority is directed to give the benefit of S. R. O. No. 1003/91 to the petitioner. THE T. R. Cs. disposed of as above. Tax revision cases allowed. .