9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said decision, this Court had categorically held, after referring to the notifications which have been extracted by us above, that, owning a land and owning a farm are too entirely different concepts and that without owning any land, one can own and run a farm. The issue raised in this revision is squarely covered by the legal principle laid down in SELVAM BROILERS (P) LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) AND OTHERS [ 2002 (5) TMI 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . If SRO.No.7/2002 cannot have any retrospective operation as declared by this Court in the afore-cited decision, it is not open for the State to contend that with effect from 01.04.2000, exemption for poultry farmers is available only if they own the land on which they conduct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 issuing the assessment order. The assessee's claim for exemption was rejected on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the land where the farm was conducted. The Appellate Authority also refused to grant the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee. However, the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated 25.02.2010 in TA.No.400/2009 found that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of SRO.No.1090/99 as amended by SRO.No.291/2000 and held that the assessee was entitled for the benefit of exemption. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 assessee claimed the benefit of the exemption on the basis of the above extracted Notification issued in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Act. 7. The assessing officer denied the claim of exemption on the basis of the amendment to SRO.No.1090/99 brought in by SRO.No.7/2002 made with effect from 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingle 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 extracted by us ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
