Holding

Circulars issued by the Board of Revenue under s.3(1A)(c) are statutory and binding on all tax authorities, and the Board was within its power to treat field latex and centrifuged latex as the same commodity to avoid double taxation, rendering the reassessments invalid.

Summary

M/s Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. purchased raw field latex in Kerala, processed it into centrifuged latex in Tamil Nadu and sold the product. For assessment years 1997‑98 and 1998‑99 the assessee relied on Circular No. 16/98 issued by the Kerala Board of Revenue under s.3(1A)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which treated field latex and centrifuged latex as the same commodity and allowed exemption from tax. The Department later reopened the assessments, arguing that the circular was ultra‑violet and that the Board had no power to equate the two items. The High Court struck down the reassessments, holding the circular binding. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Board’s circulars are statutory, binding on all tax officials, and that the Board was empowered to grant administrative relief to avoid double taxation, so the reassessments could not be reopened. The State’s appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity and binding effect of Circular No. 16/98 issued by the Board of Revenue under s.3(1A)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
Whether the Board of Revenue had authority to treat field latex and centrifuged latex as the same commodity under Entry 110 of the First Schedule.
Whether reopening completed assessments on the ground that the circular was not binding is permissible.
Whether the Board’s power to grant administrative relief includes preventing double taxation.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 378
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 119
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963s. 1, s. 10, s. 19, s. 3(1A)(c), s. 60
Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003s. 98

Subjects

tax administrationcircularsbinding effectdouble taxationKerala General Sales Tax ActBoard of Revenuefield latexcentrifuged latexexemptionassessment reopening

Judgment

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 620

)
'#
A STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Jr
v.
M/S KURIAN ABRAHAM PVT. LTD. & ANR.
)
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7965-7966 of 2004)
FEBRUARY 8, 2008
B
{S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.)
>-·
Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963: •
s. ·3(1A)(c) and First Schedule, Entry 110 - Rubber -
c Power of Board of Revenue to grant administrative relief -
Assessee purchasing field latex in Kera/a, processing it into
centrifuged latex in its factories in Tamil Nadu and selling the
same - Circular No. 16198 issued by Board of Revenue
allowing exemption under 1963 Act and Central Sales Tax
D Act, 1956, treating field latex and centrifuged latex as one and
the same commodity under Entry 110-A.O. on the basis of a >-
judgment of High Court reopening assessments on the ground \,.
that purchase turnover of field latex and sales turnover of
centrifuged latex had escaped assessment-' Writ petition by
E assess~e challenging assessment orders as contrary to
Circular No. 16198 - Plea of Department that circular was
violative of Entry 110 of First Schedule to 1963 Act and power I
to grant exemption was conferred on Government and not on
the Board - HELD: Circulars issued by the Board by
F exercising statutory powers u/s 3(1A){c), being statutory in >·
nature, are binding on all authorities administering tax
department and are to be respected by the officers working
under the supervision of the Board as long as the said circulars
remain in force - Approach of A. 0. in re-opening completed
assessment opining that circulars No. 16198 was not binding
G
is uosustainable in Jaw- Field latex and centrifuged latex, even
)>·
if assumed to be two different items of taxation under 1963
Act, double taxation avoidance comes within domain of Board
of Revenue - It was open to Board u/s 3(1A) to grant

H 620
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. M/S KURIAN ABRAHAM 621
PVT. LTD. & ANR.

administrative relief by CircularNo. 16198 if it was of opinion A
that treating field latex and centrifuged latex as two distinct
items could result in double taxation - Tax Administration -
Circulars issued by Board of Revenue - Binding nature of -
Double taxation avoidance. ·
The respondent-assessee was engaged in the B
business of rubber. It purchased field latex (raw material)
in Kerala, got it processed int~ centrifuged latex in its
factories in Tamil Nadu and sold the same either locally in
Kerala or inter-State. For the assessment year 1997-98-
1!
• initially the assessee, on the basis of Circular No. 16198 C ,
issued by the Board of Revenue uls 3(1A) (c) of the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act, 1963, was allowed exemption in
respect of the 1963 Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act,
1956, treating the field latex and the centrifuged latex as
one and the same commodity under Entry 11 O of the First D
Schedule to the 1963 Act. However, pursuant to the
judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pandinjarekara's
case* holding centrifuged latex as a commercially different
product. from field_ latex, notices were issued to the
assessee proposing to reopen KGST and CST completed E
assessments for 1997-98 on the ground that purchase
turnover of field latex and sales turnover of centrifuged
1 latex had escaped assessments both _under the 1963 Act
and the 1956 Act. The assessee's writ petition seeking to_
quash the orders of reassessments inter a/ia on the ground . F
that they were contrary to the Circular No. 16/98 was
allowed by the High Court.
In the instant appeals filed by the Department it was
contended for the appellants that Circular No. 16/98 issued ·
by the Board of Revenue was violative of the legislative G
---<'
intent of introducing Entry 110 in the First Schedule to
the 1963 Act. It was submitted that when the Legislature
had earmarked each item in Entry 110 as distinct
commodity, it was not open to the Board of Revenue to
treat field latex and centrifuged latex as the same H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

I ~
,Jt
A commodity and this amounted to legislation by the Board.
It was also contended that the power was conferred on
the Government to grant or not to grant exemption u/s 1O
of the 1963 Act, and such power was not conferred on
the Board of Revenue.
B Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The judgment of the Kerala High Court in >-
,I.

Padinjarekara* case related to assessment years 1983-
84 to 1986-87 during which time Entries 38 and 39 were in
c force whereas the instant case relates to assessment
'1>
years 1997~98 and 1998-99 when Entry 110 was in force. f

The structure of Entries 38 and 39 which existed in the j
past was materially different from the structure of Entry
110. [para 6] [626-D, E]
D *Padinjarekara Agencies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner
~
1996 (2) KLT 641 - distinguished.
2.1 In matters of tax administration, the Government ),..

needs to strike a balance between collections of revenue
on the one .hand and business-friendly approach on the
E other; and difficulties faced by the business have got to
be taken into account. Imposition of taxes consists of
liability, quantification of liability and collection of taxes. '
Exemption is a matter of policy and policy decisions have
to be taken by the Government. However, the Government
f',,_
F has to work through its senior officers in the matter of .~

difficulties which the business may face, particularly, in
matters of tax administration. That is where the role of the
Board of Revenue comes into play. The said Board
takes administrative decisions, which include the
G authority to grant administrative reliefs. This is the
underlying reason for empowering the Board to issue )'·
orders, instructions and directions to the officers under
it. Circular No. 16/98 grants administrative relief to the
business. [para 18] [636-F, G, H; 637-A, D]
H

..~l-
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MIS KURIAN ABRAHAM 623
PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2.2 In the instant case, the binding effect of Circular A
No. 16/98 needs to be kept in mind. The said pircular issued
by the Board in exercise of statutory powers vested in it
under Section 3(1A) (c), is statutory in nature. Section
3(1A) provides for an enabling power of the Board which
was recognized as an Authority under the 1963 Act. The B,
said power was to be exercised in special cases. Granting.
of administrative reliefs by the -Board came within its
authority. The said circular was issued for just and fair
administration of the 1963 Act. Section 3(1A) of the 1963
Act is similar to Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. c,
The circulars of this nature are issued by the Board
consisting of highest senior officers -in the. Revenue
Department. These circulars are binding on all the
authorities administering the tax department and are to
be respected by the officers working under the
0
supervision of the Board. [para 21] [639-E, F, G]
2.3 Whenever such binding circulars are issued by
the Board granting administrative relief(s), business
arranges its affairs relying on such circulars. Therefore,
as long as a circular remains in force, it is not open to the_ E
subordinate officers to contend that the circular is
erroneous and not binding on them. As regards Circular
No. 16/98 iss.ued by the Board of Revenue, it has not been
withdrawn so far and is still in force. [para 19] [638-0, E]
Union of India and anr. II. Azadi Bachao Ando/an and · F
anr. (2004) 10 sec 1 - relied on.
3.1 In the instant case, the nature of powers of the
Board of Revenue/Commission u/s 3(1A) of the 1963 Act,
and not the scope and extent of each item in Entry 110, is G
under consideration. Even assuming that centrifuged
latex and field latex are two different items of taxation
under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, double
taxation avoidance comes within the domain of the Board
of Revenue. It was open to the Board u/s 3(1A) to grant. H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
~ y
~
A administrative relief by Circular No. 16/98 if ·the Board in
its expertise was of the opinion that treatment of field latex
and centrifuged latex as separate and distinct items could
result in· double taxation. Therefore, the Board was
entitled to give administrative relief to the business. In fact,
B this is borne out by Notification dated 13.11.2007, issued
by the State Government, which indicates that there was ,,....._
a possibility of double taxation on centrifuged latex ..
produced from field latex and, therefore, ultimately the
Government had to step in and grant exemption under
c Section 10 of the 1963 Act. [para 18] [637-8, C, D, E, F].
3.2 The ex.emption was not there during the
assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Therefore, the
Board consisting of senior officers was aware about the
propensity of double taxation. In such circumstances, it
D was not open to the State to contend before the High
~
Court that Circular No. 16/98 was not legal, or that the
Board had acted beyond its authority in issuing the said >-
circular. [para 18 and 19] [637-G, H; 638-D]
4.1 In the instant case, completed assessments were
E sought to be reopened by the AO on the ground that
Circular· No. 16/98 was not binding. Such an approach is
unsustainable in the eyes of law. If the State Government
VIias of the view that the said Circular was illegal or that it
was ultra vires Section 3(1A), which it is not, it was open
F to the State to nullify/withdraw the said Circular under
Section 60 of the 1963 Act. Since Circular No. 16/98
continues to remain in .force and till today it has not been
withd.rawn, it is not open to the officers administering the
law \vorking under the aoard of Revenue to say that the
G said circular is not binding on them, otherwise it would
lead to chaos and indiscipline in the administration of tax >-
laws. [para 21] [640-A, B, C, D] ;

Steel Authority of India v. ·Collector of Customs, Bombay
2000 (115) ELT 42 (SC) - relied on. ·
H
~

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MIS KURIAN ABRAHAM 625
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]
~ \__._
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. A
7965-7966 of 2004
From the common final Judgment dated 8.12.2003 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 12376/2003 (W)
an-d W.P. (C) 30288/2003 (E).
B
R.F. Nariman, R. Venkataramani, S. Ganesh, Joseph
~
Markose, E.M.S. Anam, Fazlin Anam, Ramesh Babu M.R., G.
> Prakash, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Dileep Pillai, A.K. Jain, M.P. Vinod
and M.K Michael for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
KAPADIA, J. Mis Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd.-assessee is
engaged in the business of buying rubber, processing the same
and selling the processed rubber. Assessee pllrchases field
latex (raw-material) in Kerala, but, since its processing factories
D
......__
are in Tamil Nadu, it transports field latex to Tamil Nadu for
processing into centrifuged latex and returns it back into Kerala.
.... Thereafter, the centrifuged rubber is sold by the assessee either
locally in Kerala or inter-State.
2. In respect of its· sales turnover, respondent is an E
assessee under Kerala General Sa~es Tax Act, 1963 ("1963
Act") as well as under-the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("1956
Act").

3. For the assessment year 1997-98, with respect to
.( centrifuged latex sold locally, the assessee furnished Form No . F
25, declaration from the concerned buyers, and claimed
exemption- from payment of tax on the purchase Turnover of field
latex (raw-rubber). With respect to inter-State sale of centrifuged
latex, the assessee paid the tax under the 1963 Act on the
purchase of field latex and claimed exemption in respect of G
--< Central Sales Tax ("CST") under Notification SRO 1731/93 read
with. SRO 215/97. The returns filed by the assessee were
accepted by the AO vide Order dated 14.5.2001 under the 1963
Act and vide assessment order dated 31.5.2001 under the 1956
Act. Similar returns were filed by the assessee for 1998-99 H
626 ·suPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A onwards~

4. At this stage, it may be stated that returns filed by the
assessee were accepted by the Department on the basis of
Circular No. 16/98 dated 28.5.1998 (for short "the said circular")
issued by the Board of Revenue under Section 3(1A)(c). Under
B the said Circular, field and centrifuged latex were treated as
one and the same commodity in view of Entry 110 of the First
Schedule to the 1963 Act.
5. At this stage, it may be noted that, during the
c interregnum, in the case of Padinjarekara Agencies Ltd. v.
Assistant Commissioner reported in 1996 (2) KLT 641, a
learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court took the view
that centrifuged latex is a commercially different proqu,cHrom
field latex. ·
D 6. It needs to be clarified that the judgment of the Kerala
High Court in Padinjarekara case (supra) related to assessment
years 1983~84 to 1986-87 during which time Entries 38 and 39
were in force whereas in the present case, we are concerned
with the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 when Entry
E · 110 was in force. That, the structure of Entries 38 and 39 which
existed in the past was materially different from the structure of
Entry 110.
7. Be that as it may, in view of the judgment of the High
F Court in Padinjarekara case (supra) notices were issued by·
the Department under Section 19 of the 1963 Act proposing to
reopen KGST and CST completed assessments for 1997-98
on the ground that purchase turnover of field _latex and sales
turnover of centrifuged latex had escaped assessments.
Accordingly, the Department proposed to assess the entire
G purchase turnover of field latex in the hands of the assessee
under Entry 11 O(a)(i) on the ground that the centrifuged latex
obtained by processing field latex is a different commodity and,
accordingly, the assessee was the last purchaser of field latex
within Kerala. Similarly, with regard to inter-State sales of
H
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. M/S KURIAN ABRAHAM 627
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]

centrifuged latex, the Department alleged that the benefit of A
exemption taken by the assessee under the .above two
exemption Notifications was not admissible on the ground that
... the field latex purchased in Kerala and the centrifuged latex sold
inter-State were two different commodities and, accordingly, the
KGST paid by the assessee on the field latex was not sufficient B
to claim exemption for CST on the 'sale of centrifuged latex. The
Department also reopened the assessments on the ground that
) the assessee had taken the field latex out of Kerala to its factory
in Tamil Nadu and had brought it back as centrifuged latex and,
therefore, the assessee was liable to sales tax on the sales c
turnover of centrifuged latex under Entry 11 O(a)(ii) on the ground
that the assessee had sold centrifuged latex brought from
outside the State of Kerala. In other words, the assessee was
sought to be reassessed both for purchase turnover of field latex
and for sales turnover of centrifuged latex, both under the 1963 D
Act and under the 1956 Act. At this stage, it may be noted that,
till today the said Circular No. 16/98 issued by the Board of
Revenue has remained in force. It has not been withdrawn till
today.
8. Aggrieved by reopening of assessments, respondent- E
assessee herein moved the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution for quashing the orders of reassessments
inter a/ia on the ground that they were contrary to the said
circular No. 16/98 issued by the Board of Revenue (Taxes).
By the impugned judgment, the writ petition filed by the F
assessee stood allowed, hence, these civil appeals are filed
by the Department.
9. We quote Section 3(1A) of the Kerala General Sales
Tax Act, 1963, which reads as follows:
G
3. Sales tax authorities
(1A) The Board of Revenue shall have
superintendence over all officers and persons employed
in the execution of this Act and Board of Revenue may- H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A (a) call for returns from such officers and persons;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms
for regulating the practice and proceedings of such officers
and persons;
B (c) issue such orders, instructions and directions to such
officers and persons as it may deem fit, for the proper
administration of this Act."

10. Entries 38 and 39 of the First Schedule of the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as they then stood, are as follows:
c
"THE FIRST SCHEDULE
Goods in respect of which single point tax is leviable under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 5

D SI. Description of Point of Levy Rate of
No. goods tax (%)
38 Rubber
Rubber excluding
synthetic rubber
At the point of last
purchase in the
State by a dealer
-
E who is liable to
tax under section 5 5

39 Rubber products At the point of first
other than those sale in the State by a
specifically dealer who is liable to
F
mentioned in this tax under section 5 8''
Schedule

11. Entry 110 of the First Schedule of Kera la General Sales
. Tax Act, 1963 reads as follows:
G
"SCHEDULE I
GOODS IN RESPECT OF WHICH SIN~LE POINT TAX
IS LEVIABLE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION
(2) OF SECTION 5
H
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MIS KURIAN ABRAHAM 629
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]

A
SI. Description of Point of Levy Rate of
No. goods tax (%)

110 Rubber, that is to say :-

(a) raw rubber, latex,
dry ribbed sheet of all
RMA Grades, trees,
lace, earth scrap,
·ammoniated latex,
preserved latex, latex c
concentrate, centrifugal
latex, dry crepe rubber,
dry block rubber, crumb
rubber, skimmed rubber
and all other qualities D
and grades of latex.

(i) purchased within At the point of last 10
the State purchase in the
State by a dealer E
who is liable to tax
under section 5

(ii) brought from At the point of first 10
outside the State sale in the State F
by a dealer who is
iable to tax under
section 5

(b) Reclaimed rubber, do 10
G
all grades and qualities

(c) Synthetic rubber do 10"

12. Circular No. 16/98 dated 28.5.1998 issued by the
Board of Revenue reads as follows: H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A "CIRCULAR No. 16/98
Dated: 28.5.1998
Sub: . KGST A'ct 1963 - Conversion of field latex into
Centrifuged Latex - Impact of the decision of Hon'ble
High Court in Padinjarekara Agencies Limited Vs. Asst.
B
Commissioner (Assmt) - clarification issued.
A doubt has been raised as to the rate of tax and point of
levy to be adopted in respect of Centrifuged Latex in view
of the Judgement of the Kerala High Court in
c Padinjarekkara Agencies limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner
(Assessment) Kottayam (OP No. 2016/1987-M).
2. In Padinjarekkara Agencies Limited Vs. Assistant
Commissioner (Assessment), Kottayam (Judgement
dated 24.07.1995 in OP No. 2016/87/M) (1997 5 KTR
D 26) the Hon'ble High Court had held that a unit engaged
in the processing of centrifuged latex is eligible for the
concessional rate contemplated under Section 5(7) of the
KGST Act, as it stood at the relevant time in respect of the
purchase of drum and is eligible to issue declaration in
E Form 18 as "centrifuged latex" would come under the term
·"finished product" used in section 5(7) of the KGST Act. In
the O.P. therefore the Court was not concerned with the
levy of tax on "centrifuged latex" and also interpretation of
the entries in the first schedule. In the case of assessment
F the assessing authority has to take into account the entries
in the schedule and decide the entry in which an item can
be properly classified. During the years 83-84 to 86-87,
with which the Hon'ble Court was concerned in the above
O.P, the entries relating to rubber and rubber product in
G the first schedule to the KGST Act were as follows:

"38 Rubber excluding At the point of last purchase in
synthetic rubber the State by a dealer who
is liable to tax
under Section 5.
H
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. M/S KURIAN ABRAHAM 631
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.] .

39. Rubber products At the point of first sale in the
other than those State by a dealer who is liable
specifically mentioned to tax under Section 5"
in this Schedule
The scope and ambit of entry 38 was not clarified in the 8
statute. So judicial interpretation may have to be relied
on. In the case of assessments relating to the period upto
86-87, to which period the judgment mentioned above
also related the judgment in,O.P. 2816/87 can be relied
upon for interpreting the scope of the term rubber or rubber C
product falling under entry 38 &39 respectively. The Court
had held that "centrifuged latex" would be a "finished
product". So "centrifuged latex" will fall under entry 39
"rubber products other than those specifically mentioned
in this schedule" and the appropriate rate may have to be D
· applied i.e., a dealer engaged in the processing of
centrifuged latex will have to pay tax on field latex
purchased within the State and also pay tax on centrifuged
latex sold within the State or inter state as goods falling
under entry 39. This position would continue till 31.03.1988
(Even though with effect from 01.07 .1987 the first schedule E
was substituted and the Serial No. relating to the entry
rubber was changed as 161, the entry remained the same
namely "rubber excluding synthetic rubber").
3. But from 1.04.1988 entry 161 was substituted as follows: F
"161. Rubber, that is to say:

(a) Raw rubber latex, dry rubber At the point of last
sheet of all R M A grades, purchase in the State
tree lace, earth scrap, by a deaier also is G
ammoniated latex, preserved liable to tax under
latex, concentrate, centrifuged Section 5.
latex, dry crape rubber, dry
block rubber, crumb rubber,
skimmed rubber, and
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A (b) Reclaimed rubber, all At the point of sale
grades and qualities. within the State by a
dealer, a dealer who
is liable to tax under
Section 5.
B
So rubber latex and centrifuged latex are treated as one ,
and the same commodity for the purpose of taxation. So
with effect from 01.04.1988, the judgment in .
l

Padinjarekkara Agencies case mentioned earlier (5 KTR
26) cannot have any application for deciding whether
c centrifuged latex is a commodity commercially different
from latex, both being treated as a single commodity for
the purpose of taxation. So with effect from 01.04.1988,
if a dealer purchased field latex converted it into centrifuged
latex and sold centrifuged latex within the State to a
D registered dealer, he could claim exemption from tax if the
buyer had issued the declaration in form No. 25. If on the
other hand the processed latex (centrifuged latex) is sold
inter state, the dealer may have to pay tax on purchase of
field latex, he being the last purchaser within the State and
E also pay Central Sales Tax on the inter state sales of
centrifuged· 1atex. But from 01.04.1997 if a tax is paid on
field latex under the KGST Act no tax will be payable on
centrifuged latex sold inter state.
4. As per notification SRO 585/80 a reduction in the rate
F of tax payable on the purchase of rubber by small scale
rubber Industrial units from 5% to 3% was granted provided
the rubber was used in the manufacture of rubber products )-
within the State.
5. In the light of the position of law discussed above for the
G
period from 01.07.1980, i.e., the date of taking effect of
notification SRO 585/80, to 31.03.1988, this concession
witl be available, since "centrifuged latex" has to be treated
as a finished product in the light of the judgment.
H 6. But from 01.04.1988, since field latex and centrifuged
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MIS KURIAN ABRAHAM 633
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]

latex are one and the same commodity, by the change of A
law, the decision mentioned above will not have any
application and by operation .of law no new products
emerges when field latex is converted into "centrifuged
latex". So notification SR 0 585/90 will not have application
in the case of such SSI Units from 01.04.1988. From B
09.11.1990, however, a specific exclusion clause has also
been added to notification 641/81 specifically excluding
even "compounded rubber'' from the term "finished rubber
products".
7. As per notification SRO 1003/91 exemption was C'
granted, inter alia, in respect of the tax payable by Small
Scale Industrial Units on the purchase of rubber for use in
the manufacture of rubber goods subject to the condition
that tax is levied on the products manufactured out of such
rubber. Here again, since during 1991-92 the entry relating D
to rubber, namely entry 161, takes within its ambit field
latex and centrifuged latex, no new commodity emerges
in the conversion of field latex into centrifuged latex. Such
Industrial units will not therefore be eligible for exemption
under SRO 1003/91 and SRO 1727/93 in respect of the E
purchase of field latex for conversion on centrifug~d latex." ::
13. Notification S.R.O. No. 946/2007 dated 13.11.2007
reads as follows:
"S.R.O.No.946/2007.%1n exercise of the powers conferred F
by section 1O of the Kerala General Sales·Tax Act, 1963
(Act 15 of 1963), read with sub-section (5) of Section 98
of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (30 of 2004), the
Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in
the public interest so to do hereby, rescind the notification G
issued as per G.O. (P) No.43/2005/TD. Dated 31st March,
2005 and published as S.R.O. No.316/2005 in the Kerala
Gazette Extraordinary No.676 dated 31st March, 2005,
and exempt manufacturers and subsequent sellers of
Centrifuged latex and Crumb rubber from payment of tax
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A · payable under the Kera la General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on
the sales or purchase turnover of Centrifuged latex and
Crumb rubber on condition that purchase tax has been
levied and collected on the purchase turnover of field latex,
used for the manufacture of Centrifuged latex and Crumb
B rubber, under Kerala General Salex Tax Act, 1963.
Tax if any, collected shall be paid over to Government
and tax if any, already paid shall not be refunded. This {
notification shall be deemed to have been in force during
the period from 10th October, 2001to31st March, 2004."
c
·. 14. At this stage it may be stated that Entry 161 was
followed by Entry 110.
15. The basic contention raised on behalf of the State
(appellant herein) was that under section 3(1) the Board of
D Revenl}e ("the Board") was.required to exercise all the powers ~
r
conferr~d or imposed_ upon it by theAcLUnder section 3(1A), ).. '
the Board had power of superintendents over all officers· and
persons employed in the execution of the said Act and under
that sub-section the Board was empowered to issue orders,
E . instructions and directions to such officers, as it may deem fit,
for the proper administration of the Act. Placing reliance on
section 3(1 A), Mr. -Venkataramani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State, submitted that the said circular No. 16/
98 issued by the Board was without authority as the Board had
F exercised its authority under the said sub-section without the
existence of· a condition precedent, namely, that when the
legislature had earmarked each item in Entry 110 as distinct
commodity, it was not open to the Board to treat field latex and
centrifuged latex as the same commodity, namely, rubber, thus,
G according to the learned counsel, this amounts to legislation by
the Bo~rd. According to the learned counsel, by equating field
latex with_centrifuged latex, the impugned circular violates the
very legislative intent of introducing Entry 110 w.e.f. 1.4.1988
and· thereby obliterating the difference between the law as it
stood pre-April, 1988 and post 1988. According to the learned
H
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MIS KURIAN ABRAHAM 635
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]
~
'+ counsel, on a bare reading of Section 3(1A), it is clear that the A
said Board was only authorized to issue administrative circulars.
That, prior to 1.4.1988, raw rubber excluding synthetic rubber
attracted KGST at the rate of 5% at the point of last purchase in .
the State by a dealer liable to tax under Section 5 whereas under
Entry 110, field latex is a separate taxable commodity vis-a-vis B
centrifuged latex. According to the learned counsel, each item
of EntrY 110 is a se~~rate qommodity which is exigible to KGST
~
) ai the point-of !ast pµrchase in the State by a dealer liable to tax
·under Section 5.at 10%. According to the learned counsel, by
equating field latex with centrifuged latex, the former escapes c
duty. According to the learned cqunsel, the power to grant
exemption from payment of duty was not conferred on the Board.
The power to grant exemption was a matter of policy. It was for
the State to grant or not to grant such exemption. In the
circumstances, it was urged that the power of the Board was
D
executive in nature. According to the learned counsel, Section
_j.
3(1A) did not confer on the Board the power to issue Orders/
Notifications which may partake the character of legislative
exercise. According to the learned counsel, the said section
did not empower the Board to encroach upon the domain
reserved for the Government under the Act. Further, according E
to the learned counsel, the Board had no power to construe/
interpret entries or to lay down the scope and extent of each
entry. According to the learned counsel, the scope of Section
3(1A) cannot be equated to Section 378 of the Central Excise
~ Act, 1944. As the words used in Section 3(1A) are distinct and F
separate from the words used in Section 378 of the Central

-
Excise Act. Learned counsel submitted that circulars such as
the one herein do not bind the Court or even Tribunal in the matter
of interpretation/classification. In short, the case of the State
Government was that the Board had exceeded its authority under G
--(
Section 3(1A) of taking over interpretation of Entry 110, which
function could only be exercised by the quasi-judicial authority
under the Act and that the said circular constituted an
interference in the assessment proceedings before the
assessing officers. H
~

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R..

A 16. Learned counsel for the State also relied upon
+/ ,..,.
Notification dated 13.11.2007 issued by the Government of
Kerala (Tax Department). The said Notification has been issued
under Section 10 of the 1963 Act read with Section 98 of the
Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 granting exemption to
B manufacturers and subsequent sellers of centrifuged latex from
payment of tax payable under the said Act on the sales or
purchase turnover on the condition that purchase tax has been !·._
levied and collected on the purchase turnover of field latex, used
for the manufacture of centrifuged latex. This circular is relied
c upon to show that the power is conferred on the Government to
grant or not to grant exemption under Section 10 of the 1963
Act. That, such power was not conferred on the Board.According
to the learned counsel, the effect of the circular is to grant
exemption from payment of tax on the sale or purchase turnover
of centrifuged latex, which could not have been done by the
D
Board vide the above circular.
..!-
17. We find no merit in the above contentions. At the outset, '
~

it may be stated that in the case of field latex there is 60% water
and 40% is the .rubber content. On the other hand, centrifuged t-
I

E latex produced from field latex reverses the ratio whereby the '
rubber content is increased to 60% and the water content is
reduced to 40%. Basically, field latex is raw rubber whereas
centrifuged latex is a product. This is the rationale behind giving
or setting-off/deduction under Notification dated 13.11.2007.
F 18. Tax administration is a complex subject. It consists of _),..

several aspects. The Government needs to strike a balance in
the imposition of tax between collection of revenue on one hand '
and business-friendly approach on the other hand. Today, ~
Governments have realized that in matters of tax collection,
G difficulties faced by the business have got to be taken into
account. Exemption, undoubtedly, is a matter of policy.. ..,...
Interpretation of an Entry is undoubtedly a quasi-judicial function
under the tax laws. Imposition of taxes consists of liability,
quantification of liability and collection of taxes. Policy decisions
H have to be taken by the Government. However, the Government
~

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MIS KURIAN ABRAHAM 637
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]

'~ has to work through its senior officers in the matter of difficulties A
which the business may face, particularly in matters of tax
administration. That is where the role of the Board of Revenue ·
comes into play. The said Board takes administrative decisions,
which includes the authority to grant Administrative Reliefs. This
is the underlying reason for empowering the Board to issue B
orders, instructions and directions to the officers under it. In the
--'<
. --4
present case, we are not concerned with deciding the scope
j and extent of each item in Entry 110. We are essentially
concerned in this case with the nature of the powers exercised
by the Board/Commissioners under Section 3(1A). Take the c
case of centrifuged latex. It is a product made from field latex
(raw-rubber). Even for the sake of argument and even assuming
Ill(
that centrifuged latex and field latex are two different items of
taxation under the 1963 Act, as contended on behalf of the State,
.~
double taxation avoidance comes within the domain of the
D
........ Board of Revenue. It was open to the Board to grant
~ administrative relief vide Circular No. 16/98 if the Board in its
expertise was of the opinion that treatment of field latex and
centrifuged latex as separate and distinct items could result in
double taxation. Therefore, the Board was entitled to give
administrative relief to the business. In fact, what we have stated E
is borne out by Notification dated 13.11.2007 issued by the State
Government. We are informed that in November, 2007, the
Board of Revenue (Taxes) did not exist. However, the point to
be noted that even the Notification dated 13.11.2007 indicates
that there was a possibility of double taxation on centrifuged F
-(
latex produced from field latex and, therefore, ultimately the
Government _had to step in and grant exemption under Section
1O of the 1963 Act. In this case, we are not concerned with the
exemption. Power to grant exemption is certainly with the State
Government. The point to be noted is that such exemption was G ,
not there during the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.
-(

•
Therefore, the Board consisting of senior officers were aware
about the propensity of double taxation. In such circumstances,
it was not open to the State to contend before the High Court
that the said circular No. 16/98 was not legal. H
-(_
-..
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 19. One more aspect needs to be mentioned. Provisions l ...
. '
r
of Section 3(1 A) are similar to the provisions of Section 119(1) i
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("1961 Act") inasmuch as both the
sections have used the expression "for the proper administration
.of this Act". According to the Law of Income-tax by Kanga and
B Palkivala, the Bo~rd is entrusted with the power to give effect to
· the provisions· of the Act and to provide "fair and just
. '-
administration" in the matter of imposition and collection of tax. }.-
~ r-
This is where it becomes the incumbent duty of the Board to
grant administrative relief in appropriate cases. In such
c exercise, incidentally the Board has to consider the effect of the ; (~
items enumerated in the Entry. Therefore, it is not open to the
"
State Government to contend that the Board in this case had
entered into an area which is earmarked for the legislature/
executive. In our view, the said circular grants administrative
·~
relief to the business. It was entitled to do so. Therefore, it cannot
D ,..._
\

be said that the Board nad acted beyond its authority in issuing
the said circular. One more reason needs to be stated. Whenever ....
such binding circulars are issued by the Board granting
administrative relief(s) business arranges its affairs relying on
such circulars. Therefore, as long as the circular remains in force,
E it is not open to the subordinate officers to contend that the
circular is erroneous and not binding on them.
20. In the case of Union of India and anr. \I. Azadi Bachao
Ando/an and anr. Reported in (2004) 10 SCC 1 a circular was
F issued by CBDT under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. >--
It was challenged inter alia on the ground that it was ultra vires
the provisions of Section 19(1 ). The argument was rejected by
this Court in the following words:
"47. It was contended successfully before the Hig~ Court
G that the circular is ultra vires the provisions of Section 119.
Sub-section (1) of Section 119 is deliberately worded in >-·
a general manner so that CBDT is enabled to issu.e
appropriate orders, instructions or directions to the
subordinate authorities "as it may deem fit for the proper
H administration of this Act". As long as the circular emanates
. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. M/S KURIAN ABRAHAM 639
PVT. LTD. & ANR. [KAPADIA, J.]
..__ from CBDT and contains orders, instructions or directions A
-it
pertaining to proper administration of the Act, it is relatable
to the source of power under Section 119 irrespective of
its nomenclature. Apart from sub-section (1 ), sub-section
(2) of Section 119 also enables CBDT
'for the purpose of proper and efficient management B!
of the work of assessment and collection of revenue,
-4 to issue appropriate orders, general or special, in
> respect of any class of income or class of cases,
setting forth directions or instructions (not being
prejudicial to the assessees) as to the guidelines, c
principles or procedures to be followed by other
Income Tax. Authorities in the work relating to
' assessment or collection of revenue or the initiation
of proceedings for the imposition of penalties'.
D
ln our view, the High Court was not justified in reading the
..... circular as not complying with the provisions of Section
119. The circular falls well within the parameters of the
........ powers exercisable by CBDT under Section 119 of the
Act."
' 21. Lastly, the binding effect of the said circular No. 16/98
E

needs to be kept in mind. As stated above, the said circular
was issued by the Board by exercising statutory powers vested
in it under Sectfon 3(1A). As stated above, Section 3(1A)
provides for an enabling power of the Board which was F
·~ recognized as an Authority under the 1963 Act. The said power
I was to be exercised in special cases. As stated above, granting
of administrative reliefs by the Board came within its authority.
As stated above, the said circular was issued for just and fair
administration of the 1963 Act. As stated above, Section 3(1A)
G
is similar to Section 119(1) of the 1961 Act. The circulars of this
nature are issued by the Board consisting of highest senior
I ~
officers in the Revenue Department. These circulars are to be
respected by the officers working under the supervision of the
Board. These circulars are binding on all the authorities
H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A administering the tax department. The power of the Board to
i~sue such circular is traceable to Section 3(1A)(c) of the Act.
The said circular is statutory in nature. Therefore, it is binding
on the Department though not on the courts and the assessees.
In the present case, as stated above, completed assessments
B were sought to be reopened by the AO on the ground that the
said circular No. 16/98 was not binding. Such an approach is
).__
unsustainable in the eyes of law. If the State Government was of \ /
the View that such Circulars are illegal OJ that they are ultra Vires I

Section 3(1A), which it is not, it was open to the State to nullify/
c withdraw the said circular under Section 60 of the 1963 Act. Till
today, the circular continue to remain in force. Till today, it has
not been withdravvfl. In the circumstances, it is not open to the
officers administering the law working under the Board of
Revenue to say that the said circular is not binding on them. If
such a contention was to be accepted, it would lead to chaos
0
·and indiscipline in the administration of tax laws.
22. In the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector
of Customs, Bombay reported in 2000 (115) ELT 42 (SC) a
similar situation arose. It was submitted on behalf of the revenue
E . in that case that the Trade Notice had been issued only by
Bombay Customs and, therefore, it was not binding on other
Customs. This argument was repelled by the Division Bench of
this Court by stating that the Trade Notice issued by one Customs
House must bind all Customs Authorities and, if it is erroneous,
F it should be first withdrawn or amended. In the present case
also, it is not open to the assessing officers to reopen the
completed assessments on the ground that said circular No.
16/98 was erroneous. Till today, the said circular has neither
been withdrawn nor amended.
G 23. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the
impugned judgment of the High Court and, accordingly, the r
State's civil appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
R.P. Appeals dismissed.

H