9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit and extending the benefit of the notification dated May 31, 2002 to the assessee in so far as de-oiled cake is concerned. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside.The questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - S.T.R.P. No. 32 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2011 - SABHAHIT V.G. AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. For the Appellant : Shivayogi Swamy For the Respondent : Sriyuths A. Sreekanth and K. Prathapan for Kaypee Associates ORDER :- The order of the court was made by RAVI MALIMATH J. The petition is by the State being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by granting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal by modifying the reassessment order of the first appellate authority and accordingly, the benefit of reduction of two per cent Central sales tax was granted to the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed the present revision. 3. By the order dated December 7, 2009, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, can it be held that the order dated July 12, 2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 425 of 2006 allowing the appeal is correct and in accordance with law? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, can it be held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in ignorin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de-oiled cake should be understood in common parlance as understood by a common man. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of this court in the case of Habeeb Proteins Fats Extracts, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore reported in [2007] 6 VST 87 (Karn); [2005] 58 Kar L.J. 155 (HC)(DB), wherein it was held that where de-oiled cake remaining after extraction of oil from oil cake purchased, does not lose its identity as oil cake, it cannot be held that oil purchased has been consumed or has ceased to exist as oil cake. Consequently, purchase tax was not leviable on purchase of oil cake. The facts, circumstances and law declared in the said case are totally alien to the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when these commodities are subjected to processing of extraction of oil, some quantum of oil is removed but they continue to remain as oil cakes with lesser content of oil. Therefore, to contend that both commodities are same commodities and are to be taxed in the same bracket cannot be accepted. 8. The contention that the commodities will have to be understood in common parlance as understood by a common man is even harder to accept. What a common man understands need not necessarily mean what is understood in accordance with law. In the instant case, the framers of the Schedule were aware of the distinction between oil cake and de-oiled cake. Accordingly, they have treated it as two different commodities. Therefore, to hold that the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
