GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of rayon pulp, having its Head Office at Nagada, outside Kerala and a factory at Mavoor in Kozhikode district. THE pulp manufactured by the petitioner is supplied to the buyers century Rayon and National Rayon Corporation in the form of sheets. THE buyers cut the sheets to their required sizes and return the trimings to the head office at Nagada. It is stated that the petitioner supplies an equivalent quantity of sheets thereafter to the buyers from its factory at Mavoor.

(2.) IN its assessments under the central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 in in respect of the turnover of the mavoor unit the petitioner claimed deduction of the value of the goods so returned in the computation of the taxable turnover. This was under S. 8a (1) (b)of the said Act which reads: "8a. Determination of turnover: (1) IN determining the turnover of a dealer for the purpose of this Act, the following deductions shall be made from the aggregate of the sale prices, namely: (a) xx xx xx (b) the sale price of all goods returned to the dealer by the purchasers of such goods - (i) within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods, in the case of goods returned before the 14th day of May 1966; (ii) within a period of six months from the date of delivery of the goods in the case of goods returned on or after the 14th day of may 1966; Provided that satisfactory evidence of such return of goods and or refund of adjustment in accounts of the sale price thereof is produced before the authority competent to assess or, as the case may be, re assess the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, and " The assessing authority did not accept this claim for either of the years but the first appellate authority who dealt with the appeals for the two years differed in their conclusion. It was held by the authority who dealt with the appeal for 1974-75 that the claim was allowable while the authority who dealt with the subsequent years' appeal held otherwise. The Appellate Tribunal who dealt with the respective appeals of the Department and the assessee concurred with the Revenue and held that the claim was not admissible. That is how the matter is before us in these two tax revision cases.

(3.) WE have already indicated that the Appellate Tribunal upheld the departmental point of view.