2008(8) Supreme 739
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Haleema Zubair, Tropical Traders — Appellant
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6707 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP No. 9606 of 2007)
Decided on : 19-11-2008
(2006) 3 SCC 1 – Relied upon.
(b) Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 – Section 12 – The burden is on the assessee – However a provision relating to “reverse burden” must be construed having regard to the nature of the statute. (Paras 15 and 16)
(2007) 4 SCC 480 – Relied upon.
(c) Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 – Section 12 r/w section 2(viii) – Unless an assesee is proved to be a dealer, professional fees earned would not be exigible to tax. (Paras 19 and 20)
(d) Interpretation of Statutes – Taxing statutes – Income tax is levied on income irrespective of the sources from which such an income had been derived – Sales tax is levied only on the quantum of sales – Therefore, element of transaction of sale is pre-requisite for levy of sales tax. (Para 22)
(1996) 3 SCC 701 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant, Haleema Zubair, is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. She is said to be the proprietress of two concerns, - one known as M/s. Tropical Traders and another .M/s. Poseidon Food Company.
2. Topical Traders is a dealer in ceramic tiles. The business of M/s. Poseidon Food Company was to render services to various exporters as regards inspection and certification of quality of the items sought to be exported. The total turnover for the purpose of payment of sales tax was disclosed on the basis of the business carried out in the name of M/s. Tropical Traders. Whereas the taxable turnover was shown as 28,20,474.97, an addition of Rs.45,80,168.09 thereto was made by the Assessing Authority assessing a sum of Rs.3,58,87,960.97 by way of total turnover.
3. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The first appellate authority held that the professional services rendered to the exporters involving skill and knowledge did not constitute any ‘transfer of property’. The appellate authority for the purpose of assessment of tax reduced the additional income which was added by the taxing authority in the taxable turnover from 5 % to 2 = %.
4. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith both the parties preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order.
5. Revision petition filed thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court :
High Court failed to draw a distinction between the assessment under income tax and assessment under sales tax.
Result : Appeal allowed, matter remitted back.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant, Haleema Zubair, is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). She is said to be the proprietress of two concerns, - one known as M/s. Tropical Traders and another M/s. Poseidon Food Company.
3. The said Topical Traders is a dealer in ceramic tiles. The business of M/s. Poseidon Food Company was to render services to various exporters as regards inspection and certification of quality of the items sought to be exported. The total turnover for the purpose of payment of sales tax was disclosed on the basis of the business carried out in the name of M/s. Tropical Traders. Whereas the taxable turnover was shown as 28,20,474.97, an addition of Rs.45,80,168.09 thereto was made by the Assessing Authority assessing a sum of Rs.3,58,87,960.97 by way of total turnover. The order of assessment proceeded on the basis that receipt shown as commission amounting to Rs.45,80,168.09 from M/s. Poseidon Food Company is not supported and proved by any documentary evidence. Appellant contended that the services so rendered is not a ‘sale’ and thus, the said order of assessment is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
4. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. Before the appellate authority the appellant produced income-tax returns, orders of assessments passed by the income-tax officer, orders placed by the exporters and the certificates granted by Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA), Cochin.
5. By reason of an order dated 24th October, 2000 the first appellate authority upon noticing that the assessee had produced copies of the certificates issued by the MPEDA, Cochin and copies of letters issued by various parties requesting the appellant to inspect the goods to be exported, held that the professional services rendered to the exporters involving skill and knowledge did not constitute any ‘transfer of property’. It was held that the levy of tax on the receipt of commission for the sum of Rs.45,80,168.09 was not in order. The appellate authority for the purpose of assessment of tax reduced the additional income which was added by the taxing authority in the taxable turnover from 5 % to 2 = %.
6. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith both the parties preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 12 of the Act.
7. By an order dated 20th February, 2003, the Tribunal held as under :-
“We are afraid that the first appellate authority has not correctly understood the legal position involved. The observation of the first appellate authority that the sale for valuable consideration alone is exigible to tax does not appear to be correct. As per Section 5(1)(iii) of the KGST Act the consideration received in the case of transfer right to use any goods for any purpose is exigible to tax. We also notice that by a strange reasoning the first appellate authority shifted the burden of proof regarding the taxability of the disputed receipt to the assessing authority, contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the KGST Act, as per which the burden of proving that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax shall lie on the dealer. We do not think that the assessee was able to discharge this burden of proof as enjoined under Section 12 of the KGST Act. From the available materials on record the first appellate authority was therefore, not justified in deleting the receipt of Rs.45,80,168/- from the turnover of the assessee. It follows that the order of the assessing authority in this regard as has also to be restored thereby allowing the State appeal to that extent.”
8. Revision petition filed thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 4th August, 2006, stating :-
“Even though Section does not provide a presumption that such unexplained amount represents sales turn over, we have no doubt in our mind that the Assessing Officer is free to consider what exactly is the nature
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.