9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (6) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. operative Society Ltd. and the assessment year concerned in that case is 1970-71. The revision petitioner in T.R.C. Nos. 155 of 1979, 156 of 1979 and 163 of 1979 is the Polpully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the assessment years concerned are 1970-71 to 1972-73 (inclusive). While assessing the petitioners to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the aforementioned assessment years the assessing authority took the view that amounts collected by the assessees from the purchasers (ration shop retail dealers) by way of administrative surcharge and price equalisation charge were liable to be included in their taxable turnover and brought to tax. This view was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (iii)........................................" There can be no doubt that any sum which forms a component part of the aggregate amount, for which goods are sold by a dealer, will come within the scope of the expression "turnover". It may be that under the scheme promulgated by the State Government, whereunder levy and collection of administrative surcharge and price equalisation charge is provided for, the assessee is bound to pass on to the State Government all such amounts which he realises from his purchasers. But, admittedly, that is not a statutory scheme, but is only an executive order. For the purpose of determining liability to tax under the Act, we are concerned only with the question whether these amounts were collected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our Mills v. State of KeralaReported as M. Narayanan Nambiyar v. State of Kerala [1979] 44 S.T.C. 191; 1979 K.L.T. 480., with which decision we are in respectful agreement. This contention will also stand rejected. 4.. We accordingly dismiss these tax revision cases, but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Immediately after the pronouncement of judgment the counsel for the revision petitioners orally prayed for the grant of certificates under article 133(1) of the Constitution to enable his clients to carry the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. We do not however consider these to be fit cases for the grant of such certificates, since the questions of law involved are fully covered by decisions already rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
