DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (LAW), BOARD OF REVENUE (TAXES), ERNAKULAM v. MAROLI ACHUTHAN.
1993-06-11
K.P.BALANARAYANA MARAR, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
body1993
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in this batch of four revisions. The respondent, the same person, is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. We are concerned with the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. The sole question that arises for consideration in this batch of revisions, is whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on the basis of form 25 declarations issued by the purchasing dealers. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption, though the registration certificates of the purchasing dealers were cancelled with retrospective effect. The Revenue assails the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 28, 1992, for all the four years, holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue - Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. It is conceded that on the dates when form No. 25 declarations were issues by the purchasing dealers they had a valid registration certificate. Subsequent to the issue of form No. 25 declarations the certificates of registration of the purchasing dealers were cancelled with retrospective effect. Admittedly, the purchasing dealers had a valid registration certificate on the dates when the declarations were issued. Relying upon the Bench decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Debi Prasad [1991] 82 STC 305 and the later Bench decision of this Court reported in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gopal Trading Company [1992] 84 STC 294, the Appellate Tribunal held that since the purchasing dealers had a valid registration certificate at the time of the transactions in dispute, the assessee is entitled to exemption. 3. We see no error in the said reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. The common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 28, 1992 for the four years in question does not disclose any error of law. We see no merit in this batch of revisions. The tax revision cases are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.