ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ASSESSMENT SPECIAL CIRCLE-II ERNAKULAM Vs. KRISHAK BHARATHI CO-OP LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS challenge the judgment in O. P. Nos. 14991, 15020, 15021 and 16931 of 1992, O. P. Nos. 6743 and 6744 of 1993 and O. P. No. 3430 of 1994. The learned single Judge held that the assessments in question in so far as they impose tax on the amount of subsidy are illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly the writ petitions were allowed and exhibit P4 in O. P. Nos. 14991, 15020 and 15021 of 1992, exhibit P3 in O. P. Nos. 6743 and 6744 of 1993, exhibits P1 to P3 in O. P. No. 16931 of 1992 and exhibits P1, P4 and P7 in O. P. No. 3430 of 1994 to the extent tax is levied on the amount of subsidy were quashed. Though assessments in O. P. Nos. 16931 of 1992 and 3430 of 1994 were taken up in appeal under section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the learned single Judge held that it is not necessary to relegate the parties to the appellate remedy in view of the finding that the amount of subsidy is not part of the taxable turnover of the respondents.

(2.) THE contention of the appellants is that the learned single Judge ought to have accepted the plea of the appellants that the payment of subsidy was with reference to the event of sale and as the price collected from the purchaser kept in view of the pre-concluded promise from the Government of India that in addition to the purchase price paid by the purchaser the seller would get a further sum from the Government "the consumer price support subsidy" ought to have been taken into consideration when the sales turnover of the respondents was determined for the purpose of assessing sales tax. It is further contended that the learned single Judge went wrong in understanding the consumer price support subsidy as "subisdy" as understood in common parlance. THE learned Government Pleader argued that in the circumstances of the case the consumer price support subsidy ought to have been taken as part of the sale consideration and the attempt of the learned single Judge in attributing the dictionary meaning of the word "subsidy" has led to the rejection of the contention of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned single Judge has considered the matter in its correct perspective and no interference is warranted against the well considered judgment in the writ petitions.

(3.) THE respondents objected to the inclusion of the amount in their taxable turnover contending that the amount received which is in the nature of subsidy is not taxable. THE assessing authority overruled the said objection and completed the assessments levying tax on the amount of subsidy as well.