HI-TEK TRADERS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in tread rubber, who was registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent during the relevant period. The petitioner, as part of his business operations, used to purchase tread rubber from manufacturers within the State having valid TIN registration and thereafter re-sell the tread rubber to unregistered dealers outside the State through interstate sales effected by him. By Ext.P1 notification dated 31.7.2008, the State Government exempted the tax payable under sub-section 1 or 2 of Section 8 of the CST Act on the turnover of sale of natural rubber and tread rubber in the course of inter-state trade, subject to the condition that the natural rubber or the compounded rubber that was used in the production of tread rubber had suffered tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the petitioner obtained the benefit of Ext.P1 notification in respect of the interstate sales of tread rubber effected by him for the assessment years from 2008-2009 to 2013-2014. While so, by Ext.P8 notification dated 30.11.2011, the State Government confined the benefit of exemption under Ext.P1 notification to only those interstate sales of tread rubber as complied with the requirements in Section 8(4) of the CST Act, which mandated that the concessional rate of tax under the CST Act would not apply to any interstate sale where the selling dealer did not furnish the declaration in C-form to the assessing authority. In other words, through Ext.P8 notification, the benefit of exemption that was earlier granted to the petitioner assessee was taken away on the ground that the petitioner assessee had not effected sales to registered dealers under the CST Act. The assessments of the petitioner assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 were, therefore, completed by denying him the benefit of exemption under Ext.P1 notification, by placing reliance on Ext.P8 notification dated 30.11.2011, and extending the rationale of the said notification retrospectively from the date of Ext.P1 notification. The aforesaid assessment orders are impugned by the petitioner assessee in these writ petitions, where W.P.(C) No.24000 of 2014 impugns the assessment orders for the years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 and W.P.(C) Nos.11004 of 2016 impugns the assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Moly Eldhose v. Additional Sales Tax Officer 1, Perumbavoor and others [(2010) 27 VST 39 (Ker.)] to point out that in almost similar circumstances that arose under the Kerala General Sale Tax Act, where a notification had been issued in 1993 granting exemption to Khadi and Village Industrial units recognised by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, in respect of interstate sales effected by them, and the benefit of exemption was sought to be denied based on the amendments brought about to Section 8(5) of the CST Act with effect from 11.05.2002, this Court found that the subsequent amendment to Section 8(5) of the Act could not be made applicable to dis-entitle the assessee for the exemption claimed in terms of the 1993 notification. In particular, it was found that the assessee would not be in a position to secure C-form declarations pertaining to a period prior to the date of amendment of Section 8(5) and therefore he could not be denied the benefit of exemption merely on account of a subsequent amendment brought in to the statute.