2005 (3) TMI 740 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the provisions under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 regarding the levy of tax on timber dealers.
2. Validity of the second proviso to section 5(1)(v) of the Act in relation to the turnover limit for registered dealers dealing in goods under the Fifth Schedule.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a timber dealer, challenged the assessments completed by the tax officer under section 17(4) of the Act, which were later revised under section 19(1) to demand tax on the declared turnover under the Fifth Schedule, despite the turnover being below Rs. 2 lakhs. The officer sought to correct this by invoking powers under section 19(1), leading to the petitioner filing writ petitions questioning the assessments. The appellate authority confirmed the revised assessments, leading to the second writ petition challenging the orders and seeking a declaration on the validity of the second proviso to section 5(1)(v) of the Act.

2. The petitioner contended that the turnover limit for liability under section 5(1) of the Act should apply to goods under the Fifth Schedule as well, arguing that the second proviso to section 5(1)(v) is arbitrary and discriminatory. The Special Government Pleader argued that the second proviso creates an independent charging section for goods under the Fifth Schedule, making registered dealers liable for tax irrespective of turnover. The Court analyzed the relevant sections and held that the second proviso imposes an absolute liability on registered dealers for tax on Fifth Schedule goods, regardless of turnover, which does not violate the Act's provisions.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that registered and unregistered dealers should not face discrimination in tax liability, suggesting a harmonious interpretation of the charging sections. However, the Court noted that registered and unregistered dealers are distinct classes under the Act, with different privileges and obligations. The Court upheld the absolute liability on registered dealers for Fifth Schedule goods, emphasizing the legislative intent to treat registered dealers differently.

4. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the absolute liability for tax irrespective of turnover applies only to Fifth Schedule goods and not other goods under the Act. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Legislature has the authority to group goods under different schedules for varying tax treatment. As timber falls under the Fifth Schedule, the absolute liability for tax on registered dealers dealing in timber was deemed valid and not discriminatory.

5. Ultimately, the Court upheld the revised assessments completed under section 19(1) and the appellate order. The petitioner was granted a payment plan for clearing the arrears of tax without interest, subject to timely payments. The writ petitions were disposed of, affirming the validity of the provisions and the tax assessments in question.