Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ayodhya Restaurant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments)-ii

Ayodhya Restaurant vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments)-ii

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Sep 23, 1999
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/386878

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.T.R.P. No. 38 of 1997
Subject
Sales Tax
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Order 22, Rule 1 & 3: [P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. & V.G. Sabhahit, J] Death of plaintiff -Petition by owner against order of Revenue Authority directing him to hand over possession of land to respondent under Karnataka SC & ST (PTCL) Act, 1979 - Death of owner during pendency of petition Held, Order passed against dece...

Key legal issue
Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ayodhya Restaurant

Advocate E.S. Kiresur, Adv.

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments)-ii

Advocate S. Sujatha, High Court Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6
Reported In
[2001]121STC618(Kar)

Excerpt

- order 22, rule 1 & 3: [p.d. dinakaran, c.j. & v.g. sabhahit, j] death of plaintiff -petition by owner against order of revenue authority directing him to hand over possession of land to respondent under karnataka sc & st (ptcl) act, 1979 - death of owner during pendency of petition held, order passed against deceased person is a nullity. hence dismissal of petition filed by legal representative of deceased owner against said order of handing over possession is improper. karnataka scheduled castes & scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978, section 5: [p.d. dinakaran, c.j. & v.g. sabhahit, j] death of plaintiff -petition by owner against order of revenue authority directing him to hand over possession of land to respondent under karnataka sc & st (ptcl) act, 1979 - death of owner during pendency of petition held, order passed against deceased person is a nullity. hence dismissal of petition filed by legal representative of deceased owner against slaid order of handing over possession is improper. section 5 :[p.d. dinakaran, c.j. & v.g.sabhahit,j] resumption of land - land belonging to owner restored to respondent cultivator belonging to sc/st caste - writ petition by owner against order of revenue authority directing to hand over possession of land to respondent - copy of order setting aside sale in favour of owner not available with authorities - no order passed by authority declaring that sale in favour of owner was in contravention of provisions of act held, order directing owner to hand over possession of land to respondent is improper. - 1988(34)elt412(sc) was relied on, where, the cashew shells used for ancillary purpose like fuel in the process of manufacture were held as not consumed and the word 'consumption' was interpreted to mean that it must be in the manufacture as raw material or of other components which go into the making of the end-product......of sales tax (law), board of revenue (taxes), ernakulam v. hotel liberty [1988] 69 stc 54 (ker) and p.c. balaramaraja v. state of tamil nadu [1994] 94 stc 212 (mad) are not applicable.3. the following question of law is raised :'whether on the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case, purchase tax under section 6 of the act is leviable in respect of the husk purchased from unregistered dealers which is used as a fuel in the preparation of food and drinks and, whether there is an element of consumption of the husk used as fuel as per the provisions of the explanation to section 6 of the act ?'4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the interpretation which is given by the apex court and by the tamil nadu high court with regard to the word 'consumption' there cannot be any consumption unless the said item has been made as ingredients of the finished goods.5. arguments by both the learned counsel for the parties heard.6. provisions of section 6 are as under :'levy of purchase tax under certain circumstances.--subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5, every dealer, who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods in circumstances in which no tax under section 5 is leviable on the sale price of such goods, and (i) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or consumes otherwise, or disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the state, or(ii) despatches them to a place outside the state except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-state trade or commerce,shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate at which it would have been leviable on the sale price of such goods under section 5.............explanation.--for the purpose of this section 'consumes such goods in the manufacture' shall include goods consumed for ancillary purposes in or for such manufacture.' in the case of p.c......

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.K. Singhal, J.

1. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated August 22, 1996 has been challenged in this appeal for the assessment year 1992-93.

2. The assesses has purchased husk from unregistered dealer which was used as a fuel in the preparation of the food articles and is liable to tax under Section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Tribunal found that the explanation to Section 6 under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is not existing under the provisions of the Kerala and Tamil Nadu Acts, and therefore, the decisions given in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Hotel Liberty [1988] 69 STC 54 (Ker) and P.C. Balaramaraja v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 94 STC 212 (Mad) are not applicable.

3. The following question of law is raised :

'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case, purchase tax under Section 6 of the Act is leviable in respect of the husk purchased from unregistered dealers which is used as a fuel in the preparation of food and drinks and, whether there is an element of consumption of the husk used as fuel as per the provisions of the explanation to Section 6 of the Act ?'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the interpretation which is given by the apex Court and by the Tamil Nadu High Court with regard to the word 'consumption' there cannot be any consumption unless the said item has been made as ingredients of the finished goods.

5. Arguments by both the learned counsel for the parties heard.

6. Provisions of Section 6 are as under :

'Levy of purchase tax under certain circumstances.--Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 5, every dealer, who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods in circumstances in which no tax under Section 5 is leviable on the sale price of such goods, and

(i) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or consumes otherwise, or disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or

(ii) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce,

shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate at which it would have been leviable on the sale price of such goods under Section 5.............

Explanation.--For the purpose of this section 'consumes such goods in the manufacture' shall include goods consumed for ancillary purposes in or for such manufacture.'

In the case of P.C. Balaramaraja v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 94 STC 212 (Mad), it was held that 'it must be as raw material or component going into end-product, charcoal used as fuel for manufacture of cement, paint, was not considered liable to purchase tax'. In this case the decision given in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. : 1988(34)ELT412(SC) was relied on, where, the cashew shells used for ancillary purpose like fuel in the process of manufacture were held as not consumed and the word 'consumption' was interpreted to mean that it must be in the manufacture as raw material or of other components which go into the making of the end-product.

7. Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, before the insertion of the explanation, there could have been no levy on purchase tax under Section 6 if there was no consumption of the goods in the manufacture of other goods, i.e., if the fuel itself was not consumed in the manufacture and was not a component or part in one form or other. But the explanation provides that 'consumes such goods in the manufacture shall also include goods consumed for ancillary purposes in or for such manufacture'. The ancillary purpose would be for burning as fuel and, therefore the definition as under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act are hot relevant. The decision given thereunder cannot be relied upon. Under Karnataka Sales Tax Act goods can be consumed for manufacture. Use of fuel is for manufacture of goods.

8. This Court in the case of Vengamma Trust v. State of Karnataka [1994] 93 STC 207, has considered the liability of purchase tax on purchases of kerosene and diesel from unregistered dealers and upheld the levy.

9. In view of this decision, we feel that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in upholding the liability of purchase tax.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial