9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im exemption on the turnover for the year, a poultry farmer must conduct his farm on land owned by him and situated within the State. The farmer claimed that the benefit of exemption was available if the farm was owned by him, in contradistinction to ownership of the land. Assessee claimed that ownership was never contemplated under the exemption notification. The Tribunal granted the exemption against which the State is in revision under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The assessment year in issue is 2000-01. The assessing authority rejected the books of account of the assessee and denied the claim of exemption on the turnover of poultry reared in the assessee's farm while issuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Turnover of sale of poultry reared by them in their own farm within the State whether hatched by them or not and the meat obtained therefrom Nil 5. Though there was another amendment as SRO.No.877/2000 w.e.f.23.09.2000, we are not extracting the same as there is no significant difference. 6. The assessee claimed that it owned a farm within the State of Kerala though it did not own the land and instead was run and leased land. He also claimed that owning the land was not a condition as per the notification relevant for the year 2000-01 for claiming exemption on the turnover. The only stipulation for claiming exemption was to own a farm within the State. Owning the farm and owning the land being two entirely different concepts the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 (Ker.)] wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had declared that SRO.No.7/2002 does not have any retrospective operation. In coming to the said conclusion, this Court had taken note of the decisions in M.M. Nagalingam Nadar Sons v. State of Kerala [(1993) 91 STC 61 (Ker)] and Deputy Commissioner (Law) v. M.R.F. Ltd. [(1998) 109 STC 306 (Ker.)] holding that though Section 10(1) of the Act gives power to the Government to grant exemption or reduction in rate of tax either prospectively or retrospectively, Section 10(3) did not expressly confer the power for retrospectively cancelling or varying a notification already issued. In the said decision, this Court had categorically held, after referring to the notifications which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
