CEAKAY RUBBER INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is a manufacturer of tread rubber at Industrial Estate, Changanacherry. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1986-87. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 10, 1991, in T.A. No. 269 of 1990 is in challenge herein. The main raw material for manufacture of tread rubber is natural rubber. During the relevant year, rubber was an item taxable at the point of last purchase in the State at the rate of 5 per cent. The revision petitioner assessee contends that it is entitled to the benefit of the Government Notification S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 dated June 2, 1981, by which the rate of tax was reduced from 5 per cent to 3 per cent on the purchase of rubber by the manufacturers of finished rubber products within the State for the use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. The Appellate Tribunal negatived the plea. That has resulted in the present revision.

(2.) We heard counsel for the assessee, Mr. C.N. Ramachandran Nair of M/s. Menon & Pai, and also counsel for the respondent Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V.C. James.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the revision petitioner assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of 3 per cent on the purchase of rubber effected by it. The Revenue contends that the assessee is not entitled to the concessional rate. Though the plea raised is in a narrow compass, the matter has not been approached from a proper angle by any of the authorities. We say so, because two notifications were brought to our notice, viz., S.R.O. Nos. 585 of 1980 and 641 of 1981. S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 was amended by S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990. The assessing authority has denied the concessional rate, but has not referred to any specific notification. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee seems to have relied on S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 and the plea was examined from that angle. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal examined the plea relying on S.R.O. No. 585 of 1980. Before us, the plea of the revision petitioner assessee is that it is entitled to the concessional rate whichever notification is made applicable.