9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olutely no justification for not accepting the contention and statements contained in the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the statements contained in the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 3299 of 1994, the order of dismissal passed by this Court on January 21, 1994, is set aside. I proceed to hear the matter on merits. 2.. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader also. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The same has been registered as a small-scale industrial unit functioning in Industrial Estate, Kollakkadavu, Mavelikkara. It is an assessee for sales tax on the files of the first respondent. 3.. It is the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the first respondent, is also the case of the petitioner. 5.. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, the first respondent has issued exhibit P4 dated October 30, 1989, directing the petitioner to pay the sales tax at 10 per cent instead of 3 per cent already remitted by him. Immediately on receipt of the same, the petitioner has made another representation, exhibit P5, requesting the officer therein 30 days time to the petitioner before taking a decision in the matter. Thereafter, the assessing authority has issued a notice provisional (annual demand) under rule 18(3) of the Rules demanding tax at 10 per cent for the total turnover of Rs. 10,49,332.32 from the petitioner for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which may be considered as a notification issued under section 10 of the Act. 8.. I heard the Senior Government Pleader, Shri V.C. James. According to him, it is a matter to be considered by the assessing authority at the time of final assessment. He has also stated that the Government have the power to issue exhibit P1 Government Order. In the decision reported in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1; AIR 1987 SC 590, the Supreme Court has considered the earlier notification wherein the Supreme Court has held "where the authority making an order has power conferred upon it by statute to make an order made by it and the order is made without indicating the provisions under which it is made, the order should be deemed to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State to contend that this notification has not been issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the light of the decision reported above, it shall be declared that exhibit PI notification is a notification issued under section 10 of the Act and the liability of the petitioner is only 3 per cent on finished rubber goods produced from factories in Kerala. 11.. The learned Government Pleader has submitted before me that this is a matter finally to be decided by the sales tax authorities at the time of final assessment. It is true that the final assessment has to be made by the sales tax authorities. But there is no justification to demand more than 3 per cent tax for the relevant period from the petitioner in respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
