SREENIVAS AND CO. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee purchases raw skins to fulfil export orders for finished leathers. They claimed that their turnover is eligible for exemption in view of the decision T. Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1991] 82 STC 355 (Mad). The assessing officer held that they had not filed correlating statement to prove that the raw skins were purchased in the course of export and therefore, disallowed the claim for exemption. Against that, an appeal was filed by the assessee. Referring to the correlation statement filed in respect of the purchase of raw skin against the export orders and following T. Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [1991] 82 STC 355 (Mad) the appellate authority held that the purchases of raw skin within the State against purchase orders for export are not liable to tax accepting the assessee's case that the purchase of raw skin was effected for fulfilment of export orders of finished leathers. The Revenue challenged this before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal following K.A.K. Anwar and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1998] 108 STC 258 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically held that, 'dressed hides and skins are goods different from raw hides and skins', held that the claim of exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is not in order and allowed the appeal. Against this the appellant herein filed the revision before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and the matter had been admitted and notice had been issued on December 6, 2001. Consequent to the abolition of the Tribunal, these matters are entertained as a revision by us.

(2.) EVEN at the outset, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Shafeeq Shameel and Company v. Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes : (2003)9SCC276 covers this issue. But elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel of the appellant that Shafeeq Shameel's case : (2003)9SCC276 can be distinguished. So we are dealing with the same.

(3.) MR . Haja Nazirudeen, learned Special Government Pleader, in addition to Shafeeq Shamed and Company v. Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes : (2003)9SCC276 would submit that the entry in Section 14(iii) is for the limited purpose of enumerating such of those goods which are declared goods and the inclusion of several goods in one entry would not mean that they are not different taxable goods, especially when the Supreme Court has held that they are different. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the above circulars would at best bind the Revenue, and the categoric pronouncement of the Supreme Court cannot be ignored.