SREE KRISHNA TRADES Vs. STO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this original petition is an assessee to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts. P-1 and P-3. Ext. P1 is a notice issued under the proviso to S.17(3) of the Act for making a best of judgment assessment. Ext. P-3 is the final assessment for the year 1972-73. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the benefit of a Notification exempting purchase of firewood and clay by the manufacturers of tiles within the State under S.10 of the Act issued after the assessment year but before the actual assessment, can be claimed by the assessee in the assessment for that year. A decision of this question depends upon the fact as to when the liability to sales tax in respect of a transaction arises. The petitioner has also a contention that the petitioner's accounts cannot be rejected on the ground that the quantity of gum used was insufficient.

(2.) . The petitioner is a dealer in copra. coconut oil, oil cakes, bricks, tiles etc. The petitioner produced his books of account and other connected records of the year 1972-73 before the respondent Sales Tax Officer, Thodupuzha. But the respondent issued Ext. P-1 notice under S.17(3) of the Act rejecting the accounts and proposing a best of judgment assessment for the reasons indicated therein. The petitioner filed his objections to Ext. P-1 on 25-2-1975. In his objections to Ext. P1 the petitioner pointed out that the quantity of gum used for crushing copra would vary with the quality of copra crushed. It was also pointed out that the calculation of gum at a uniform rate of 500 gms. per quintal as stated in Ext. P1 was wholly arbitrary. The petitioner also claimed exemption of the purchase turnover of firewood and clay as per Ext. P-2 notification dated 19-11-1973. But the respondent overruled the petitioner's objections and assessed the petitioner as per Ext. P-3 order dated 25-2-1975. The petitioner challenges Exts. P-1 and P-3 in this original petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The statement in Para.3 of the counter affidavit is that assessments for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 made on similar lines are pending in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam and in the case of the assessment for the year 1972-73 the petitioner has approached this Court without filing an appeal. It is pointed out in Para.7 that the petitioner has not kept accounts for the use of gum. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In Para.3 of the reply affidavit it is reiterated that in any event, on a correct interpretation of Ext. P2 notification the petitioner's purchase turnover of clay and firewood is not to be taxed.