C. UPPERI HAJI Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a firm,carrying on business of running oil and saw mills and dealing on copra and coconut oil.The first respondent,the Sales Tax Officer,Badagara assessed the petitioner under the General Sales Tax Act,1125(hereinafter referred to as the State Act)for the year 1961 -62 by his order,Ex.P 1 dated 29 -2 -1965.Coconut including copra is item 35 in Schedule.1 to the State Act;and goods falling under the above description is taxable at 2 Paise in the rupee at the point of last purchase in the State,This Court held in Poulose Bros,v State of Kerala(1963)XIV STC 40 that copra did not fall within the above description,and was not,therefore taxable under the State Act.In the light of this decision,the petitioner was not taxed on the purchase of copra.The Kerala Sales Tax(Levy and Validation)Act,1965(hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act)was passed to get over the difficulty caused by the above decision;and it imposed a tax at the rate of 2 Paise in the rupee on the turnover relating to purchase of copra at the point of last purchase in the State during the period from 1 -4 -1958 to 31 -3 -1963.S.4 of the Validation Act provides,among other things,that any tax not assessed under the State Act before the 1st day of April,1963 may be assessed within three years from the date of publication of this Act and recovered in the manner provided therein.The Validation Act was published on 27th September 1965.In the light of the Validation Act,the first respondent proceeded to assess the petitioner in respect of the purchase of copra during the year 1961 -62.After complying with the formalities the first respondent passed an order of assessment Ex.P 4 dated 13 -4 -1967 making a comprehensive assessment on the total turnover of the petitioner for the above year.This Original Petition has been filed to quash Ex.P 4.

(2.) THE attack made against the impugned assessment in the Original Petition is that it is a reassessment of escaped turnover,that R.33 of the General Sales Tax Rules,1950 provides a period of three years from the end of the year to which the assessment relates for assessing escaped turnover,and that,therefore Ex.P 4 is bad under law,as it has been made beyond the aforesaid period.If Ex.P 4 has only assessed the purchase of copra by the petitioner,the above contention would be unsustainable,as that assessment is one made under the Validation Act,and it has been made within the period of three years permitted by the said Act for making such assessments.The learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that Ex.P 4 was not only in respect of purchase of copra,but it is a comprehensive assessment on the total turnover of the petitioner in respect of the sale of all goods during the year,and that by Ex.P 4 the first respondent has enhanced the turnover in respect of the sale of some of the goods which he assessed under Ex P 1.I have examined both the assessment orders;and this contention cannot be sustained.

(3.) THE total turnover assessed under Ex.P 1 is Rs.1,92,831 -33 and it consists of the following items: Local sale of oil estimated. Rs.1,52,386 -89 Local sale of oil -cake estimated 15,331 -20 Purchase of coit in the mill 394 -30 Local sale of timber in the saw mill 22,729 -28 Purchase of coir 1,989 -75 Total gross turnover 1,92,831 -33 The total under Ex.P -4 is Rs.20,62,566 -25;and it consists of: Saw Mill Section 22,729 -28 Coconut and copra accounts 17,29,642 -09 Oil Mill Section 2,90,194 -88 Total 20,62,566 -25 There is no dispute that Rs.17,29,642 -09 mentioned in Ex.P 4 is on account of coconut and copra accounts;and this is a new item to be taxed under the Validation Act.Rs.22,729 -28 is on saw mill section;and that this figure is the same both in Ex.P 1 and Ex.P 4.The controversy is only regarding Rs.2,90,194 -88 shown in Ex.P 4 under Oil Mill Section.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amount represented the turnover of oil and cake sold by the petitioner and that under Ex.P 1 the turnover fixed on this account was only Rs.1,52,386 -80 and Rs.15,331 -20.This contention cannot stand on a careful scrutiny of Ex.P 4.The amount of Rs.2,90,94 -88 represents the total price of the copra purchased and crushed in the petitioner 's mill plus the total turnover on oil and cake sold during the year less the deduction that the petitioner was entitled to get in respect of oil produced from the said copra and sold within the State.It also includes the two items of purchase of coir mentioned in Ex P 1.All details regarding the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,90,194 88 are given in Ex.P 4.The contention that Ex.P 1,the original assessment,has been revised and enhanced in Ex.P 4 in respect of goods other than copra cannot be sustained.On the other hand,what is seen from Ex.P 4 is that,consequent on the accessibility of copra,the petitioner was given deduction in the sale turnover of coconut oil and cake as allowed by the relevant notification.