DY COMMISSIONER Vs. CARMEL BOOK STALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Rax Revision Cases are against a common order in T. A. Nos. 578 and 579 of 1985 dated 20-2-1987 of the Kerala Sales tax Appellate Tribunal. Trivandrum. The respondent in the Revision Cases is Charitable Institution, assessed to Sales tax under the Kerala General Sales tax Act by the Sales tax Officer for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 negativing the claim of the Institution for exemption under a Notification, SRO. 342/63. The said notification was made pursuant to S.10 of the Act by which the tax payable in regard to the turnover of sales by a Charitable Institution the profit of which is solely utilised for charitable purposes is exempted. The assessee's appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were also dismissed on the ground that the assessee has not utilised the profits for charitable purposes. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal as T.A. Nos. 578 and 579 of 1985 and the Tribunal by a common order dated 20-2-1987 allowed the appeals against the Kerala General Sales tax assessments for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 (In fact, the said order related to appeals, 2 being under the Central Sales tax Act which we are not concerned in these Tax Revision Cases).

(2.) The Tribunal held that there was no time limit prescribed in the exemption notification. SRO. No. 342/63 for utilisation of profit, that the amount utilised for augmenting the assets of the charitable institution is itself a utilisation for charitable purpose, and that the expression "the profit of which is solely utilised for charitable purposes" in the notification is not indicative of the period but indicative of the purpose for which amounts are to be utilised. It ultimately held that as long as the purpose of the institution is charitable and there is no utilisation of income for non charitable purposes, the utilisation of profit is for charitable purposes for the purpose of the notification and therefore the assessee is entitled to exemption. As stated above, it is against the said common order that the department has come up in revision.

(3.) We heard counsel for the department as well as counsel for the assessee.