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

1980 Supreme(Ker) 185

V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, BALAKRISHNA MENON
DY. COMMR. OF SALES TAX – Appellant
Versus
HAJI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The State is the revision petitioner before us and the challenge is directed against the correctness of the decision rendered by the Salestax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in Tribunal Appeal No. 503/ 77 holding that turpentine does not fall within the scope of entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - for short the Act - and hence the turnover of the assessee relating to the sale of turpentine is taxable at the general rate.

2. Entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Act reads: "Paints, colours, lacquers and varnishes."

We are totally unable to see how turpentine can be said to fall within any of the aforesaid categories described in this entry. Turpentine is, no doubt, used as a solvent thinner or dissolvent in paints and varnishes but it cannot by itself be applied to other substances for the purpose of imparting colour or shine.

3. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Colour Chem. Ltd. ()XII STC. 90) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had occasion to consider the scope of an identical entry contained in Schedule C in Entry 39 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act-Act 51 of 1959. And it was held that:

"the term "paints" occurrin



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