JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)M/s Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd.-assessee is engaged in the business of buying rubber, processing the same and selling the processed rubber. Assessee purchases field latex (raw-material) in Kerala, but, since its processing factories are in Tamil Nadu, it transports field latex to Tamil nadu for processing into centrifuged latex and returns it back into Kerala. Thereafter, the centrifuged rubber is sold by the assessee either locally in kerala or inter-State.
(2.)IN respect of its sales turnover, respondent is an assessee under Kerala general Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("1963 Act") as well as under the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 ("1956 Act" ).
For the assessment year 1997-98, with respect to centrifuged latex sold locally, the assessee furnished Form No. 25, declaration from the concerned buyers, and claimed exemption from payment of tax on the purchase Turnover of field latex (raw-rubber ). With respect to inter-State sale of centrifuged latex, the assessee paid the tax under the 1963 Act on the purchase of field latex and claimed exemption in respect of Central Sales tax ("cst") under Notification SRO 1731/93 read with SRO 215/97. The returns filed by the assessee were accepted by the AO vide Order dated 14. 5. 2001 under the 1963 Act and vide assessment order dated 31. 5. 2001 under the 1956 Act. Similar returns were filed by the assessee for 1998-99 onwards.
At this stage, it may be stated that returns filed by the assessee were accepted by the Department on the basis of Circular No. 16/98 dated 28. 5. 1998 (for short "the said circular") issued by the Board of Revenue under Section 3 (1a) (c ). Under the said Circular, field and centrifuged latex were treated as one and the same commodity in view of Entry 110 of the first Schedule to the 1963 Act.
(3.)AT this stage, it may be noted that, during the interregnum, in the case of Padinjarekara Agencies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner reported in 1996 (2) KLT 641, a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court took the view that centrifuged latex is a commercially different product from field latex.
It needs to be clarified that the judgment of the Kerala High Court in padinjarekara case (supra) related to assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 during which time Entries 38 and 39 were in force whereas in the present case, we are concerned with the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 when Entry 110 was in force. That, the structure of Entries 38 and 39 which existed in the past was materially different from the structure of Entry 110.