KURIAN ARRAHAM PVT LIMITED Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the Circular dated May 28, 1998 issued by the Department of Revenue (Taxes) clarifying that "field latex and centrifuged latex are one and the same commodity" binding on the Revenue? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in these petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution. The facts as given in O.P. No.12376 of 2003 may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It buys raw rubber including latex. It processes latex and produces centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. By this process, the water content of raw latex is reduced.

(3.) ON October 11, 2001 a Division Bench of this Court decided the case of M/s. Supersonic Industrial Complex, Muvattupuzha v. Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Ernakulam (TRC No.37 of 2001). It was inter alia held that raw rubber latex and centrifuged latex are different commodities. Consequently, a dealer who purchases raw rubber latex and produces centrifuged latex is liable to pay tax on the purchase of raw rubber latex under Entry 110 as the last purchaser of rubber. Still further, it was also held that the Circular dated May 28, 1998 "cannot have binding force in the place of the conclusion that is to be arrived at based on an appreciation of rival arguments on the scheme of the Act ...... The Board of Revenue cannot issue a Circular exempting a commodity from tax." This decision is reported in ((2002) 10 KTR 203).