SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 532

K. S. PARIPOORNAN, S. P. KURDUKAR, A. M. AHMADI
Raja Provision Stores – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Tribunal (Sales Tax) , Trivandrum – Respondent


ORDER

1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the appellant who carries on business of buying paddy and after getting it husked sells the rice becomes liable to pay tax under Section 5-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. This question came up for consideration before the High Court of Kerala in N. Narayanan Nambiyar v. State of Kerala [(1979) 44 STC 191 (Ker)]. In that case, the High Court held that a process of manufacture was involved in the production of rice by milling paddy and hence rice so produced represents "other goods" within the meaning of the said provision since rice is distinct in nature and character from paddy. In Ganesh Trading Co. V. State of Haryana [(1974) 3 SCC 620 : 1974 SCC (Tax) 100 : (1973) 32 STC 623] a Division Bench of this Court held that even though rice is produced out of paddy, paddy does not continue to be paddy even after dehusking. Rice and paddy are two different things in ordinary parlance. Therefore, when paddy is dehusked and rice is produced there has been a change in the identity of the goods. This Court, therefore, took the view that the assessee is liable to pay tax on the goods purchased from the market. The same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top