KANHOLY RAMANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these tax revision cases, the one and only question that arises for our consideration and decision is, whether Maize and flattened Maize (Maize Poha) are one and the same commodity so as to be covered by the term maize under the heading. "cereal in Entry No. 9 of Second Schedule to Kerala General Sales Tax Act or a different commodity liable to be assessed as an unclassified item taxable under the residuary entry.

(2.) The assessments had been completed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1991-92. The assessing authority was of the view, that maize and maize poha are commercially different commodities and therefore, they are not covered by the term maize that find a place under cereal in Entry 9 of Second Schedule to K.G.S.T. Act. The first appellate authority had confirmed the findings and conclusions reached by the assessing authority. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Kozhikode Bench in T.A. No. 99 of 1996 had taken the view that maize and maize poha are one and the same commodity and therefore, they are covered by the term maize that find a place under cereal in Entry 9 of Second Schedule to KGST Act. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the State had carried the matter in Revision Petition No. 302 of 2000 before this Court.

(3.) For the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in the appeals filed by the State Government in T.A. Nos. 156.157 and 158 of 2001, the Tribunal had concluded that Maize and Maize Poha are commercially different commodities and therefore they would not be covered by the term maize under the heading cereal in Entry 9 of Second Schedule to KGST Act. The assessee being aggrieved by the orders passes by the Tribunal had filed Tax Revision Cases in T.R.C. Nos. 294, 295 and 296 of 2002 before this Court. This Court by common judgment dated 6th November, 2002 in T.R.C. Nos. 294, 295, 296 of 2002 and 302 of 2000 has set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and has remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court and also the catena of decisions rendered by this Court. While doing so, the Division Bench has observed as under: