9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is not an agriculturist and tea is not an agricultural or horticultural produce. This aspect of the matter has to be examined and thereafter fresh orders are to be passed by respondent No. 2. - Writ Petition Nos. 12993,12994,13420, 13421, 13422 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2010 - ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J. ORDER:- ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J. The petitioner is agitating its right of inputtax credit on the purchase of pesticides, manure, fertilizers and chemicals used for growing the tea. The petitioner is a partnership firm owning the tea estate. It is engaged in the cultivation of tea plants and in the manufacture of commercial tea. It is registered as a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It has sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gaged in poultry farming and sells the products of such poultry farm shall not be deemed to be a dealer within the meaning of this clause; Sri Venkatesh submits that the combined reading of the afore-extracted provisions shows that the said Act has created a legal fiction that tea growing farmer is not an agriculturist and that tea is not an agricultural produce at all. When the petitioner is not an agriculturist and when it is a registered dealer, it is entitled to credit on the tax paid on the inputs in question. The learned counsel also submits that the honourable Supreme Court's decision in the case of Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in [1977] 39 STC 1 (SC), has no application to the facts of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rings to my notice the definition contained in section 2(2) of the said Act, which states that agriculturist means a person who cultivates the land personally. That the petitioner has been cultivating the land is not in dispute at all. That the petitioner needs the inputs in question for the agricultural operations is also not in dispute at all. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is absolutely sustainable. He further submits that the second respondent has issued the clarification in question following the judgment of the apex court in the case of Travancore [1977] 39 STC 1 (SC), wherein it is held that the fertilizers, chemicals, weedicides, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides for use in tea cultivation cannot be sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot being agricultural or horticultural produce for the purpose of the said Act are not examined by the second respondent. What is required to be considered by respondent No. 2 is the entitlement or otherwise based on the petitioner's registration as a dealer under the said Act, when the petitioner is not an agriculturist and tea is not an agricultural or horticultural produce. This aspect of the matter has to be examined and thereafter fresh orders are to be passed by respondent No. 2. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed, but the same does not automatically mean that the petitioner is entitled to input-tax credit or set-off on fertilizers, chemicals, manure, etc. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
