Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 112 (KER)

M. S. RAJA MOHAMMED v. STATE OF KERALA.

1996-02-28

G.SIVARAJAN, V.V.KAMAT

body1996
JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - These three revision petitions under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, related to only one contention and the same alone is pressed for our consideration. 2. The contention is that the levy has to be made on the first seller as provided under the provisions of the Act. It is urged that the commodity - cardamom is liable to the levy of tax, as per Schedule I to the Act. Seeing the Schedule it is seen that it is taxable at the first sale in the State by dealer who is liable to tax under section 5 of the said Act. 3. The position is that even though the planter can be considered as a dealer without difficulty, what is required is that such planter has to be liable to pay tax under section 5 of the Act. The petitioner has not only to establish the purchase from the planter but in addition has further to establish that the sales turnover of such planter exceeds the assessable limit provided under the statute. There is no dispute that there is no material in this connection. 4. The Tribunal is particular to emphasize that the said contention is not seen advanced at any earlier stage before the authorities below the Tribunal. We have scrutinised the earlier two orders. There cannot be any difficulty to establish that the commodity is purchased from the planter but there is no whisper of any material in regard to the requirement that such planter would be considered as liable to tax under the provisions of section 5 of the Act. The Tribunal cannot be blamed when there is no material with regard to the liability. The Tribunal is also more than justified that the assessee - the present petitioner is under the burden of proof to establish the tax liability of the planter in accordance with the provisions of the section 5 of the Act. There being no material in regard to this vital aspect and in addition the contention having been raised for the first time on the second appellate stage, no fault can be seen for the exercise of powers under section 41 of the Act. These petitions that relate to different assessment years stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.