2008 (8) TMI 543 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment of purchase turnover of aluminium scrap and old utensils and vessels at the rate applicable as provided for under entry 83 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 - Held that - Appeal dismissed. In this case there exists a cause viz. a wrong reading of the entry. The Tribunal committed a manifest error in construing the relevant entry . It failed to take into consideration the principles governing the interpretation of a taxing statute. On technical grounds the Tribunal s view cannot be upheld. Entry 5 speaks of utensils and not scraps made out of old utensils. They are two different commodities coming under two different entries. We therefore are of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. However there cannot be any doubt whatsoever and particularly in view of the stand taken by the parties that if sales tax has been paid on an article purchase tax cannot be levied thereupon.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of entries in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 regarding taxation on aluminium scrap and old utensils used in manufacturing aluminium household utensils.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Entry 5 and Entry 83
The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Entry 5 and Entry 83 of the First Schedule to the Act. Entry 5 pertains to aluminium household utensils, while Entry 83 deals with metal scraps. The assessing authority initially held that Entry 83 applied to the case, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the omission of the word "and" in Entry 5 did not change the intent of the legislature. The High Court, however, upheld the applicability of Entry 83, emphasizing that aluminium scrap should be taxed under Entry 83 as it is processed to recover the metal. The Court concluded that all items purchased as aluminium scrap or old vessels fall under Entry 83, not Entry 5.

Issue 2: Taxation and Interpretation of Entries
The appellant contended that since sales tax had been paid on the goods, no purchase tax should be levied. The High Court agreed that if sales tax had been paid, no purchase tax should apply. However, it noted that the determination of whether the aluminium scrap had already been taxed was a factual question that needed assessment by the authority. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal erred in interpreting the entries and that Entry 83 clearly encompassed all metal scraps other than those specified in the Second Schedule.

Issue 3: Dealer's Activities and Classification
The appellant, a dealer under the Act, dealt with the purchase and sale of aluminium household utensils, entrusting them for manufacturing new vessels. The Tribunal found that the appellant primarily dealt with old vessels and scrap for converting them into new utensils, classifying the appellant as a scrap dealer rather than a dealer in aluminium vessels under Entry 5.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that Entry 83 applied to the appellant's case. It directed the assessing authority to determine if the aluminium scrap had already been taxed and allowed parties to present additional evidence. The Court clarified that if sales tax had been paid on an item, no purchase tax could be imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of correct interpretation of tax entries and the distinction between different commodities under separate entries in the schedule.