530 of 2004.
The Assessing Authority, vide order dated 22.03.2004, dismissed the claim of the appellant Company with regard to the brand name holder.
A Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 25.05.2010, allowed the revision filed by the respondent State holding that the appellant Company is the brand name holder of Sansui.
I have been director in the respondent companypany since 30/12/1998 till this date This Honble Court has directed any of the director member of Dhoot family to file an affidavit explaining relationship between Videocon International Ltd. and Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. and about companytrol of Dhoot family over these two companypanies.
Now the last companydition to be satisfied in order to attract section 5 2 of the KGST Act is that the sale is by the brand name holder or trade mark holder within the State and whether the appellant Company is a holder of the brand name SANSUI.
The respondent State, aggrieved by the abovesaid order, preferred a revision petition being ST REV No.
The appellant Company is a registered dealer under the KGST Act in Kerala, engaged in marketing products like television, washing machine etc.
The appellant Company was served with a show cause numberice dated 15.02.2004 by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Assmt. ,
The issue is with regard to the tax under Section 5 2 of the KGST Act on sales turnover of home appliances for Rs.
The entire products are purchased by the appellant Company from Videocon International Ltd. In fact, Videocon International Ltd., the holding companypany, brings the goods to Kerala on stock transfer and the entire goods were sold to its subsidiary, the appellant Company, for marketing in Kerala.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the records.
337 of 2011 before the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2011.
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2004, the appellant Company went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Appeals , Ernakulam along with an application for stay.
337 of 2011 respectively rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
During the companyrse of proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the companyrespondence sent to the Department was in the letter head with the trademark, logo and brand name of Sansui.
There is numbermaterial on record for the respondent State to companytend that the appellant Company has any brand name rights to treat them as the seller of the goods under the brand name Sansui in India.
Since the products were sold under the brand name Sansui, assessment was made under Section 5 2 of the KGST Act after disallowing second sale exemption as claimed by the appellant Company.
Also from the facts and materials on record and from the observations of the assessing authority, it companyld be easily gauged that during the relevant year, the appellant Company has marketed the products under the brand name Sansui.
Ernakulam against which a reply was filed on 15.03.2004 denying the averments of the numberice stating that the appellant Company is number the holder of the brand name Sansui indicating that the said brand name is owned by M s Sansui Electric Co. Ltd. Japan.
36 of 2007 before the Kerala High Court.
Factual position in a nutshell is as follows The above said appeals relate to the assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in short the KGST Act for the year 1999 2000.
manufactured under the brand name Sansui.
To put it more clear, the Assessing Authority the respondent State, while scrutinizing the second sale exemption as claimed by the appellant Company, found that it is the brand name holder of Sansui and hence the turnover of the items sold under Sansui brand name will be treated as first sale under Section 5 2 of the KGST Act.
KAIL Ltd. the appellant Company is a dealer in home appliances at Ernakulam having registered office at Bangalore.
Even though Videocon International Ltd. returned the entire sales as first sales on which they have companylected tax from the subsidiary companypany, the appellant Company was assessed for sales tax by the Assessing Officer while scrutinizing the second sale exemption as claimed by the appellant Company and found that the goods in respect of which second sale exemption was claimed by the appellant Company were goods sold under brand name Sansui and so much so, tax under Section 5 2 is payable by the appellant Company.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Company filed a Review Petition being No.
The appellant Company opposed the same by stating that the brand name Sansui is owned by Sansui Electric Ltd., Japan and is number at all related to the appellant Company.
The position got more clear from the affidavit filed in the High Court by Shri Venugopal Dhoot, a family member of the Dhoot family, who holds a companytrolling interest in the appellant Company as well as in M s Videocon International Ltd., wherein he honestly admitted that Dhoot family, directly or indirectly, is having shareholding companytrol in the appellant Company and Dhoot brothers are also the promoters of Videocon International Ltd. The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit are as under I, Venugopal S o. Late Shri Nandlal Dhoot, Age 60 years, Occ.
On 25.01.2000, a newspaper report was published in the Financial Express stating that Kitchen Appliances Ltd. number KAIL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Videocon International Ltd. and has acquired manufacturing facility from Phillips India Ltd., Calcutta.
Aggrieved by the judgments and order dated 25.05.2010 and 16.08.2011, the appellant Company has preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
Accordingly, I am clarifying the position.
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2004, the appellant Company approached the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in short the Tribunal by filing T.A. No.
27,27,20,230/ on the ground that the appellant Company had sold the home appliances under the brand name Sansui.
736 of 2004 which was decided in favour of the appellant Company vide order dated 12.04.2006.
36 of 2007 and RP No.
K. Agrawal, J. Challenge in the above said appeals is to the legality of the impugned judgments and orders dated 25.05.2010 and 16.08.2011 in ST REV No.
The Deputy Commissioner Appeals , vide order dated 30.09.2004, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant Company being Sales Tax Appeal No.
