1993 (2) TMI 316 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act regarding the purchase of empty drums for marketing finished products.
2. Misuse of form No. 18 declarations and imposition of penalty under section 45A of the Act.
3. Maintainability of the original petition due to the availability of alternate statutory remedy.
4. Adjudication of the controversy involving scientific and technical evidence in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in processing and sale of centrifuged latex, purchased empty drums for marketing its finished product under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The dispute arose when the authorities contended that the drums were not used for manufacturing but for preservation only. The petitioner argued that the conversion of raw latex into centrifuged latex involved a manufacturing process. The court did not delve into the merits of the proceedings, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of scientific and technical evidence, and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available.

2. The second respondent imposed a penalty on the petitioner under section 45A of the Act for alleged misuse of form No. 18 declarations. The petitioner challenged this penalty through revisions, which were dismissed on procedural grounds. The court quashed the revisional order and directed the revisional authority to allow the petitioner to file a revision in proper form, ensuring a thorough adjudication of the points raised in accordance with law. The court also highlighted the need to consider penalty guidelines laid down in previous judgments.

3. The court addressed the issue of maintainability of the original petition, given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy. Citing precedent, the court held that in cases involving complex factual disputes, such as scientific and technical evidence, the statutory remedy should be pursued for a satisfactory adjudication. The court declined to delve into the merits of the proceedings and directed the petitioner to follow the statutory route for resolution.

4. The judgment underscored the importance of a comprehensive examination of the controversy involving scientific and technical evidence, which was deemed unsuitable for adjudication under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the need for a detailed analysis of conflicting claims by both the assessee and the Revenue, indicating that such matters are best addressed through the statutory remedy provided by the law.