GAJANANA AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 30 C of the Kerala General Salestax Act (hereinafter referred to as the KGST Act'). O.P.No98 of 1996 is treated as the main case.

(2.) There are three petitioners in the Original Petition. First petitioner is M/s Gajanan Agencies, second petitioner is H. Sathish Kamath and the third petitioner is H. Anantha Kamath. According to the petitioner, the first petitioner is a Partnership Firm consisting of seven partners of whom Sathish Kamath is the Managing Partner. The Firm carries on business in purchase and sales of rubber sheets. The business was commenced in 1987. The purchases are made from cultivators and growers of rubber as well as from plantations and the sales are made locally to various dealers. The first petitioner is a registered dealer in rubber under the KGST Act. 1963 and under the Central Sales tax Act, 1956.

(3.) The turnover of rubber is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under Section 5. Schedule I of the KGST Act. The first petitioner s sales being to local dealers within the State, no tax is payable by the first petitioner on the purchase turnover of rubber. On 27.12.1995, the first petitioner purchased 9 tonnes of rubber sheets from cultivators and growers situated at Kandanje, Karimbala, Kadapana near Ethadkka, as per purchase bill Nos. 4434 to 4485 dated 27.12.1995 and was transporting the same to the first petitioner's business place in Kanhagad. The transportation was supported by delivery note in Form No.26 bearing serial No AB 885105 dated 27.12.1995. The goods were being transported in lorry No.KL 14-5304 belonging to H. Anantha Kamath. A similar quantity of 9 tonnes, which was purchased as per purchase Bill No.4486 to 4537 dated 27.12.1995 from Chalakkode, Madathadkka, Bykunje in the Ehadkka area was also being transported as per delivery note No AB 885106 dated 22.07.1995 and the copies of purchase bills referred to above in lorry No KL 19-6114 belonging to H. Sathish Kamath. Thus, according to the first petitioner, the purchase and transportation of raw rubber sheets was in accordance with the provisions of Sections 29 and 29A of the KGST Act. Therefore, there was no irregularity in the transaction.