PALGHAT OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these two petitions challenges the orders of assessment for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The main contention of the petitioner is that the expression "his mil" in notifications SRO No. 137/69 and SRO No. 854/74 issued under S.10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, granting reduced rates, are wide enough to include a person who does not have a proper title, but who is in sole control of the mill. The petitioner contends that the Sales Tax Officer unjustifiably rejected its claim for reduction in rate on the basis of the two notifications. The notifications read:

(2.) The words "his mill" in the context of the two notifications, in our view, refer to a mill solely operated by the assessee. The assessee must be in such control of the mill as to be its sole operator. His control may be by virtue of his full or limited ownership or other rights in the mill. What is important is not his title, but his exclusive control. He must be in exclusive control of the mill either as an individual or as a corporation. The question therefore is, is he the sole operator of the sole mill In OP No. 404 of 1968, Govindan Nair, J., as he then was, held:

(3.) Whether in the instant case the facts as determined by the competent authority qualify the petitioner as a miller so as to be entitled to the reduction in rate granted under the two notifications is a matter for final determination by the appropriate authority. We are told that appeals filed against the orders impugned in these petitions are now pending before the appellate authority. It is for that authority to determine the relevant facts and apply the same to the law as we have declared. The Original Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.