Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs Pio Food Packers

1980 AIR 1227, 1980 SCR (3)1271

9 May 1980

Petitioner: Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax

Defendant: Pio Food Packers

Statutes Referred:

Kerala General Sales Act, 1963

The Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. The State of Bombay & ors. 497 1997

A Hajee Abdul Shukoor and ors. V. The State of Madras SCC 358 1998

The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory 1991 SCR 671

Ganesh Trading Co. Karnal v. State of Haryana &ors. 82(2) SCR 1971

Dhagabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool 69(3) SCC 1984

Facts of the Case

1. The suit was filed against the decision passed by the Kerala High Court stating that the turnover of the pineapple factory that were preparing pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans are not covered under section 5-A(1)(a) of the Kerala general sales Act, 1963.
2. As the business of the factory was around a turnover of Rs. 3,64,138 and according the volume of the factory it should fall under the Act.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the sales of the pineapple sealed cans fall under the Kerala General Sales Act, 1963?
2. Whether the consumer should also liable to pay the tax for the consumption of the sealed can pineapples?

Parties Contention

Petitioner

• The petitioner has filed his petition stated that the factory of pineapple sealed cans sales should be considered under the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963 as the company was bearing the turnover around Rs. 3,64,138.

Defendant

1. The defendant had claimed that all the allegations were false and also stated that the sales of the factory will not fall under the tax criteria as the tax was already paid when the pineapples were purchased and there is no need to pay the tax again at the time of the sale of the pineapple sliced cut tinned can.
2. Thus, the cans were also manufactured, marketed and sold in the same state so the tax will not be applicable on the pineapple cans.

Judgment

1. The court has taken the appropriate decision that the company should fall under the criteria of the tax act imposed by the government because the pineapple are the raw materials that were used in the production of the pineapple sliced can.
2. So the factory is liable to pay the tax on the final products that were marketed to the masses directly.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law was followed here in the above case that the tax rules and regulations should be followed properly by all the institutions on which the sales of the firm depends or rely upon.

Comment

According to my personal opinion, the tax slabs should be revised according to the recent situations and to the regulatory bodies.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision regarding the case that every organisation should adhere the rules of tax regulations which are settled by the government.