9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales tax liability under the provisions of the KVAT Act? - HELD THAT:- For the purposes of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, there is a transfer of the property in the latex that is extracted from the rubber trees from the petitioner to the third party. It is also relevant that the consideration that flowed from the third party to the petitioner was for the latex that was obtained by him and not merely for the right to collect the latex. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in MUNINAGAIAH VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [ 1996 (6) TMI 321 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] also cannot come to his aid since we find that, that was a case that concerned the grant of a right to collect tamarind f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON SREEJITH R.NAIR K.KRISHNA FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN ORDER Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these O.T. Revisions involved a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these O.T. Revisions are as follows: The revision petitioner is a company holding rubber plantations. During the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with a third party by which the third party was granted a right to tap and remove rubber crop (latex) from approximately 7000 rubber trees standing in an ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by it, from the definition of 'turnover' for the purposes of levy of tax. The contention of the petitioner that the agreement entered into with the third party collector of the latex from the trees was more in the nature of a grant of a profit a prendre was also rejected by the assessing authority, who, as stated above, proceeded to confirm the demand of tax on the petitioner under the KVAT Act. 4. Although the petitioner preferred further appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, the said appeals did not meet with any degree of success and they were dismissed by the said authorities. It is against the order of dismissal by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter appropriate the latex obtained thereby to himself, it is also significant that there is no provision in the agreement which deals with how any part of the latex so extracted should be dealt with after the expiry of the licence period. We are of the view that for the purposes of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, there is a transfer of the property in the latex that is extracted from the rubber trees from the petitioner to the third party. It is also relevant that the consideration that flowed from the third party to the petitioner was for the latex that was obtained by him and not merely for the right to collect the latex. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Muninagalah v. State of Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
