APPOLO TUBES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law raised in these two Tax Revision Cases is whether the item 'G.I. Pipes' will fall within the category of 'declared goods' as enumerated in S.14(iv)(xi) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner is a dealer in G.I. pipes. The assessment relates to assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee had claimed exemption from levying additional tax and surcharge on the tax levied on the sales turnover of G.I. pipes. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority. The appeals before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the further appeals before the Tribunal had been decided against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that G.I. pipes are declared goods within the meaning of S.14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and also the Second Schedule of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963, because, the G. I. pipes dealt in by the assessee are only steel tubes and it is contended that steel tubes popularly known as G. I. pipes come within the meaning of S.14(iv)(xi) of the Central Sales Tax Act corresponding to item 3(ii)(k) of the Second Schedule of the General Sales Tax Act. The claim was that because the goods dealt in by the assessee are declared goods the levy of tax in respect of the same is controlled by S.15 of the Central Act and tax can be levied only at the point of first sale within the State and at the rate of 4 per cent and no additional tax or surcharge can be levied in respect of such goods.

(3.) The claim for exemption is countered by the respondent stating that 'G.I. pipes' fall within item 46 in Schedule.1 with effect from 16-9-1980 and is not declared goods falling within Second Schedule or S.14 of the Central Act. It is submitted that the entries in clause (iv) of S.14 as also the entry 3(ii) are exhaustive and there cannot be any addition to that list by construing a specified item as including other goods. Reference was made to the decision in State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons, 37 STC 583 (SC) by counsel for the revision petitioner while the Government Pleader placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra, (1976) 37 STC 319 and State of Tamil Nadu v. India Metal Industries (1980) 46 STC 304 (Mad).