PARAKADAVIL SANITATIONS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION is at the instance of the assessee. Questions raised for decision of this Court are as follows : " (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that unglazed ceramic tiles sold under the brand name kent tiles is assessable under item 105 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act at 15 per cent for the year 1984-85 ? (b) In view of the findings of the authorities below that the kent tiles sold is unglazed ceramic tile, should not the Tribunal have held that the item is not classified under the First Schedule and hence assessable only at the general rate ?"

(2.) ASSESSEE is engaged in the business of buying and selling ceramic tiles by brand name "kent tiles". According to the assessee, kent tiles are unglazed ceramic tiles used in bath room and it would not come within entry No. 105 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which is the relevant entry for the assessment year 1984-85. Original assessment was completed assessing the turnover of kent tiles at 8 per cent. However, on the basis of a clarification issued by the Government as G. O. (P) No. 110/88/td dated August 8, 1988 under section 59a of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act in regard to kent tiles, assessing authority revised assessment and assessed turnover at 15 per cent. Appellate authority confirmed the assessment on the same basis. Before the Tribunal assessee contended that clarification issued under section 59a can have no legal force in the light of the decision of this Court in Travancore Chemical & Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 313. Even though the above contention was accepted by the Tribunal, it took the view after examining the tiles that kent tiles would come within entry No. 105 of the First Schedule taxable at 15 per cent. Tribunal observed that, in arriving at the above conclusion, it had also taken into consideration the fact that kent tiles are ceramic products and are used for side walls and bath rooms, etc. Assessment was thus confirmed. 4. It is contended by the assessee that the Tribunal has committed an error in bringing kent files which is unglazed tiles, within entry No. 105 which takes in only glazed tiles apart from mosaic tiles, etc. Unglazed tiles is not included in entry No. 105. On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that it has not entered a specific finding as to whether kent tiles are glazed tiles or unglazed tiles. We are of the view that a specific finding on this aspect is necessary to decide the question whether kent tiles would come within entry No. 105. We therefore set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and send back the case for fresh consideration and for entering a specific finding as to whether Kent tiles are glazed tiles or unglazed tiles and to decide the question accordingly. The tax revision case is allowed to the above extent. Petition allowed. .