G BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore, disposed of an appeal on 9th March, 1972, filed by the assessee. THE turnover in dispute before the Tribunal came to Rs. 99, 904.70 consisting of two items, namely, (1) Rs. 93, 639.45 representing canteen sales and Rs. 6, 265.25 representing the sale of scraps.

(2.) THE Tribunal proceeded on the basis that these two items of turnover are not liable to be taxed in view of a decision of this court reported in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Thirumagal Mills Limited. THE Tribunal further proceeded on the basis that this decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. THE Tribunal noticed that, as far as the canteen sales are concerned, it was an amenity provided by the company for its workers and staff as enjoined under section 46 of the Factories Act. In the view that it took on the basis of the decision of this court which was assumed by it to leave been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal did not go into the contentions of the assessee, but merely excluded the said items from the taxable turnover.

(3.) THE Tribunal held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. the sales of scraps had attracted liability to tax as such sales were incidental and ancillary to the trade of the assessee. As regards the canteen sales, the Tribunal observed : "However the turnover of canteen sales would be exempt form assessment only if the assessee had subsidised 25 per cent. of the total expenses incurred in running the canteen as per G.O.P. No. 2238, Revenue, dated 1st September, 1964. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court the deletion of the assessment on the second turnover by the Tribunal is an error apparent on the fact of the records. In their counter the respondents seek to claim exemption from assessment on the second turnover on the basis of the above Government Order. This contention has not been raised by the respondents at any stage of the proceedings. This contention raised for the first time before the Tribunal cannot be given any consideration in view of the decision in Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.