9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, the Act ) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the CST Act ) and quash the same. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass and these may first be noticed. M/s. Louis Dreyfus India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) is a private limited company with its registered office at Mumbai. It is engaged, inter alia, in the trade of import and sale of various agricultural and other commodities including sugar. The company has a branch office in the State of Kerala and is a registered dealer both under the Act and under the CST Act. The assessment year in question is 1999-2000. The company filed its annual returns declaring a total turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent through its representatives. The company gave a detailed reply to this notice. It was stated in the reply that the sugar imported by the company was covered under sub-heading Nos. 1701.31 and 1701.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, therefore, the sugar imported by it stood exempted under entry No. 56 of the Third Schedule to the Act. A copy of the bill of entry was attached along with the reply to show that the consignment had been cleared by the Customs authorities under sub-heading Nos. 1701.11 of the customs tariff heading 17.01, the corresponding sub-heading for the Central Excise Tariff Act being 1701.39. According to the company, the customs authorities settled the classification of the commodity aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore it was not exempt from tax. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge examined the merits of the contentions advanced before it and came to the conclusion that the sugar imported by the company answered the description in entry 56 of the Third Schedule to the Act and therefore was exempt from tax. The learned single Judge also observed that there was nothing more for the company to prove its claim for exemption after it had produced the copies of the bill of entry showing that the sugar imported by the company was covered under the sub-heading No. 1701.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In view of these findings the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported was covered under the sub-heading Nos. 1701.31 and 1701.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Entry 56 as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from April 1, 1999 was as under: 56. Sugar covered under sub-heading Nos. 1701.20, 1701.31, 1701.39 and 1702.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). This was amended by the State Legislature with effect from April 1, 1999 by Act 23 of 1999 and the amended provision reads as under: 56. Sugar covered under sub-heading Nos. 1701.31 and 1701.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Central Act 5 of 1986). A reading of the amended and unamended entry 56 makes it clear that there were varieties of sugar whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not allow the assessing authority to make the assessment. In other words, the learned single Judge did what the assessing authority should have done. The assessing authority did not lack jurisdiction in framing the assessment and therefore in exercise of that jurisdiction it could pass a right order as well as a wrong order. If the company felt aggrieved it could get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of in the appeal. Further appeal is provided to the Tribunal. We are clearly of the view that all these statutory remedies could not be allowed to be bypassed and, therefore, it was not appropriate for the learned single Judge to have entered into the merits of the controversy at the stage when the company had been issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before concluding, it may be mentioned that when this writ appeal came up for hearing on September 30, 2003, the learned State Counsel appearing for the appellants prayed for an adjournment for three months to enable the assessing authority to take a view on the matter and pass an order considering the reply submitted by the company. It was understood that the assessing authority would take an independent view without being influenced by the observations and directions issued by the learned single Judge, but how could that authority do. Learned counsel for the parties have produced before us a copy of the order of assessment dated April 2, 2003 relating to inter-State sales passed by the assessing authority during the pendency of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
