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
followed : Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana
State of Karnataka v. B. Raghurama Shetty
considered : State of orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.