1990 (8) TMI 386 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Exigibility of turnover tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the assessment year 1987-88.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The revision petitioner, an assessee to sales tax, was engaged in distributing products manufactured by a company. The primary issue in this case was whether turnover tax was applicable for the assessment year in question. The assessing authority, first appellate authority, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had all ruled against the assessee, confirming the applicability of turnover tax under section 5(2A) of the KGST Act.

2. The assessee claimed exemption on the entire turnover but the assessing authority determined the taxable turnover under the turnover tax scheme. The turnover tax was levied based on the turnover exceeding a specified amount, as per section 5(2A) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, leading to the revision petition by the assessee.

3. Section 5(2A) of the KGST Act mandated turnover tax for dealers whose total turnover exceeded a specified amount. The Government notification later enhanced the exemption limit for dealers. The contention raised by the revision petitioner that turnover tax introduced in 1987 should not apply to turnover prior to July 1, 1987, was rejected. The court emphasized that the concept of total turnover for the financial year must include the turnover for the entire year.

4. The court concurred with the Appellate Tribunal's decision that the total turnover for the year must be considered in determining the liability for turnover tax. The argument that turnover prior to the introduction of turnover tax should be excluded was deemed without merit. As the assessee had not paid tax on turnover before July 1, 1987, the court found no error in the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusion, ultimately dismissing the revision petition.

5. The judgment upheld the applicability of turnover tax based on the total turnover for the year, rejecting the argument that turnover before the introduction of the tax should be excluded. The court found no grounds to support the revision petition and dismissed it accordingly.