1980 (6) TMI 109 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of amounts collected by cooperative societies from purchasers.
2. Inclusion of administrative surcharge and price equalization charge in taxable turnover.
3. Jurisdiction of tax assessment under section 5A of the Act for dehusking paddy.

Analysis:

1. The revision petitioners, two cooperative societies, were appointed as authorized agents by the state government to procure paddy from agriculturists and sell it to ration shops after processing. The assessing authority included amounts collected by the petitioners from purchasers as part of the taxable turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The petitioners challenged this view, arguing that the amounts were not part of the turnover. However, the court held that any sum forming part of the aggregate amount for which goods are sold constitutes turnover. The court cited relevant legal definitions and previous Supreme Court decisions to support this position. Therefore, the inclusion of amounts collected by the petitioners in the taxable turnover was deemed legal and within jurisdiction.

2. The petitioners also contended that no manufacturing process was involved in dehusking paddy and converting it into rice, questioning the jurisdiction of tax assessment under section 5A of the Act. The court referenced a previous ruling by a Division Bench of the court, which upheld the power to tax in similar cases. The court agreed with this decision, rejecting the petitioners' argument against the invocation of section 5A for tax assessment. Consequently, the court dismissed the tax revision cases without costs.

3. Following the judgment, the petitioners' counsel requested certificates under article 133(1) of the Constitution for an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the court declined this request, stating that the legal issues raised were already addressed in previous Supreme Court decisions, rendering the questions not of general importance necessitating a Supreme Court pronouncement. Therefore, the request for certificates under article 133(1) of the Constitution was rejected, and the petitions were ultimately dismissed.