STATE OF KERALA Vs. KURIAN ABRAHAM PVT LTD
LAWS(SC)-2008-2-92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 08,2008

STATE OF KERALA Appellant
VERSUS
KURIAN ABRAHAM PVT LTD Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

O.P. SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-338] [REFERRED TO]
MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2009-3-105] [REFERRED TO]
SASI VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2010-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
SANJU VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2023-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2015-9-63] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS GOVT OF INDIA PATNA VS. VIJAY KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-1-150] [REFERRED]
ABDUL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHAMAN MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. RAJIV KHOSLA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-490] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPUDEEN VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [LAWS(HPH)-2022-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
CASIL HEALTH PRODUCTS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [LAWS(CE)-2008-11-53] [RELIED ON]
KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GREENWORLD CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
SON OF MD. RAJA @ ABDUL RAZA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ATOFINA PEROXIDES INDIA LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-446] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. KODANADU TEA ESTATE COMPANY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-404] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA ELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-288] [REFERRED TO]
KLUBER LUBRICATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-215] [REFERRED TO]
Kamla VS. State of H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. RAJIV KHOSLA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NAGARAJA RAO [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-671] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAKA STEELS LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(ST)-2008-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE GAMING & HOTEL SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2015-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
HARUN KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
SAPAT KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAI KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-74] [REFERRED TO]
AFZAL HAROON BATATAWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-8-380] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE CONSTRUCTION CO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ORS. VS. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-416] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI STONE CRUSHING INDUSTRIES VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KAR)-2015-2-474] [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI AND SONS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
VENKTESH SHIVA PERMAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANRAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUNRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC) [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIF VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NATH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
SREENIVAS AND CO. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-302] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAKKAL LATEX(P) LTD VS. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2012-11-225] [REFERRED TO]
U K MONU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-6-529] [REFERRED TO]
ONORA HOSPITALITY PVT LTD REP BY DIRECTOR ASHISH VOHRA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (TDS) [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-136] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA TAXFABS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-372] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHSAGAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ASAGEER VS. N.C.B [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
KANTA VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2010-12-208] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR AGA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-158] [RELIED ON]
GURPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
NASHIMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2013-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VS. S SUMATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-511] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SOUTH TRAVANCORE DISTILLERIES & ALLIED PRODUCTS [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-140] [REFERRED TO]
BETTY RAME VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-200] [REFERRED TO]
MD. MOJAMIL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BRICHH BAITHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
FORD INDIA P LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-571] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SALEM DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-523] [REFERRED TO]
AMANI FIDEL CHRIS VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR VS. M/S GAD FASHION, G [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-11-211] [REFERRED TO]
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, N. C. B. JAMMU VS. VIJAY KUMAR [LAWS(J&K)-2021-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
MURTUJA ALI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHALAM ALI VS. UNION OF INDIA (NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW) [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
WALI HASSAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
MKU (ARMOURS) PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(ST)-2009-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRICHY VS. P L GANDHI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-524] [REFERRED TO]
SONEX AUTO INDUSTRIES P. LIMITED VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-783] [REFERRED TO]
MICHAEL VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2013-1-277] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTU LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2024-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
S. MURALI MOHAN VS. S. SRIKALA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
S. MURALI MOHAN VS. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/ACB/CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAPAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAN KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
KARAMCHAND THAPAR AND BROS COAL SALES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER FINE PROCESSORS PVT. LTD VS. SUPER FINE PROCESSORS PVT. LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-248] [REFERRED TO]


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.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.