9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in tread rubber, who was registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent during the relevant period. The petitioner, as part of his business operations, used to purchase tread rubber from manufacturers within the State having valid TIN registration and thereafter re-sell the tread rubber to unregistered dealers outside the State through interstate sales effected by him. By Ext.P1 notification dated 31.7.2008, the State Government exempted the tax payable under sub-section 1 or 2 of Section 8 of the CST Act on the turnover of sale of natural rubber and tread rubber in the course of inter-state trade, subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee in these writ petitions, where W.P.(C) No.24000 of 2014 impugns the assessment orders for the years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 and W.P.(C) Nos.11004 of 2016 impugns the assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Moly Eldhose v. Additional Sales Tax Officer 1, Perumbavoor and others [(2010) 27 VST 39 (Ker.)] to point out that in almost similar circumstances that arose under the Kerala General Sale Tax Act, where a notification had been issued in 1993 granting exemption to Khadi and Village Industrial units recognised by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, in respect of interstate sales effected by them, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gality in Ext.P1 notification, and making the condition, requiring an interstate sale to a registered dealer, a pre-requisite for claiming the benefit of exemption under the earlier notification dated 30.7.2008. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader with regard to the inherent illegality in Ext.P1 notification that granted the benefit of exemption to the petitioner in the instant cases. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of Section 8(5) as it then stood, the State Government had a pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat only cured the illegality in the earlier notification, cannot be legally sustained and is hereby rejected. For the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, it is apparent that by virtue of Ext.P8 notification itself the petitioner could not have claimed the benefit of Ext.P1 notification in respect of interstate sales effected to unregistered dealers. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even if the benefit of exemption is denied to the petitioner, in the assessments that were completed against him for the aforementioned years, the petitioner should at least be granted the benefit of set off of input credit against the output tax paid in respect of the interstate sales effected by him. I find force in the said content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
