GIRI AND COMPANY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are concerned in this case only with the assessment for the year 1990 -91. But, we are told that on the same issue other assessments of the petitioner for several other years are pending before various other authorities, awaiting decision in this case. The assessees are dealers in ghee, butter, vanaspathi and edible oil. They reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 76,84,537.90 and Rs. 9,88,263 respectively for the year 1990 -91 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. They claimed exemption on second sales of edible oils, etc., to the tune of Rs. 66,96,274.90. The assessing authority found that the sale of empty tins to the extent of Rs. 55,058 was not eligible for exemption, because the empty tins had not suffered tax earlier. The sale of empty tins for the period April 1, 1990 to May 6, 1990, namely, Rs. 6,910 was taxed at 8 per cent and the sale for the period May 7, 1990 to March 31, 1991 was taxed at 5 per cent. The objections of the assessee were :

(2.) ON first appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the assessing officer, by stating :

(3.) BEFORE us, Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, reiterates the same points and buttresses his arguments by citing [1998] 108 STC 598 (SO (Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala). In that case, the appellant sold liquor packed in cardboard cartons. It claimed that it had charged its customers separately for the liquor and the cartons, and that, therefore, the turnover of the cartons could not be included in the turnover of the liquor which was taxable at 50 per cent, but that the turnover of the cartons had to be taxed separately at the rate of 8 per cent as provided in entry 97 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The High Court rejected the claim. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the turnover of the cartons had to be included in the turnover of the liquor and taxed at the same rate as was applicable to liquor. But, the following observations of the Supreme Court certainly supports the Revenue :