GOVERNMENT WOOD WORKS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter "the Act") is by the assessee and relates to the assessment year 1979-80. Assessment was originally completed on the petitioner on 25th September, 1980. THIS order of assessment was reopened by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Act, by his order dated 3rd September, 1984, which was communicated to the assessee on 28th November, 1984. Thereby the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) ASSESSEE is the Government Wood Workshop and Common Service Centre, Calicut. It is a unit owned by the Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the SIDECO), which is a company wholly owned by the Government of Kerala. The petitioner-unit is engaged in the manufacture of furniture at Calicut. SIDECO has other units also. The petitioner-unit is registered as a dealer under the Act. During the assessment year in question the petitioner-unit had transferred to other units of SIDECO, furniture of the value of Rs. 1,60,746. It appears that the other units of SIDECO to whom the furniture was transferred, have also been separately registered as dealers under the Act. In making the original assessment on 25th September, 1980, the assessing authority did not impose tax on the value of the furniture so supplied to the other units of SIDECO. The Deputy Commissioner who set aside the assessment under section 35 was of the view that these other units to which the furniture was transferred were not "branches" of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had paid only Rs. 10 towards renewal fee of its dealership registration certificate and had not paid any amount for "branch certificate renewal fee" for the other units, and therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,60,746 represented nothing but sales of furniture by the assessee to the other units and hence taxable.

(3.) COUNSEL for the assessee, Mr. M. A. Manhu, has contended before us that the first items of turnover mentioned above was not liable to tax in the petitioner's hands, and that, in any case the order under section 35 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was barred by limitation.