FORWARD TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions are filed by the same petitioner. He is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Revenue is the respondent in all these three cases. The matter relates to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The petitioner is an oil miller. For the above three years, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the turnover relating to the sales of oil and oil cake were brought to tax after giving the assessee (revision petitioner) the benefit of the notification, S. R. O. 116/66. The assessee had filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals ). For the first two years the appeals were disposed of on 10th May, 1978 and for the year 1974-75 the appeal was disposed of on 26th April, 1978. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central Zone), Ernakulam, took the view that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the concession contemplated by notification, S. R. O. 116/66, and initiated suo motu revision proceedings under section 35 (2a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by issuing notice dated 6th November, 1979. By order dated 30th January, 1980, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Central Zone), Ernakulam, set aside the assessment orders for all the three years and remitted the matter to the assessing authority for fresh disposal according to law. This was so done notwithstanding the objections of the assessee objecting to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to initiate suo motu proceedings and also the plea on the merits. The assessee filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that the suo motu revision proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was illegal and unauthorised. He also pleaded that he is entitled to the benefit of notification, S. R. O. 116/66. The Appellate Tribunal held that the objection to the initiation of suo motu revision proceedings under section 35 (2a) is without force. It was held that it will be difficult to accept the assessee's contention that section 35 (2a) will not be applicable to orders of assessment passed before 1st April, 1978. Section 35 (2a), which was inserted in the statute from 1st April, 1978, enabled the revisional authority (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax) to exercise enlarged jurisdiction in respect of assessment orders irrespective of the question whether such orders were passed before or after that date. The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to initiate proceedings under section 35 (2a) of the Act was upheld. On the merits, it was held that the petitioner was crushing copra in the mills run by others and so he is not entitled to the benefit of the notification, S. R. O. 116/66. The appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the common order rendered for all the three years dated 11th January, 1983. The assessee has come up in revisions.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jose, as also the counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Nambiar. In view of the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Palghat Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 169, the petitioner's counsel did not press the plea that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of notification, S. R. O. 116/66. No argument was advanced regarding the applicability of S. R. O. 116/66.

(3.) THESE three revisions are allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250 in each revision. Petitions allowed. .