IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 303 of 2007()
1. CHEMNAD TRADERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :14/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.T.(Rev) No.303 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2007.
ORDER
H.L.DATTU, CJ,
The petitioner before us is a dealer registered under the provisions of
the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’). He is an assessee on the files
of the Additional Sales Tax Officer No.I, Vatakara.
2. The assessee is doing business in sale and purchase of copra.
3. The original assessment has been completed by the assessing
authority for the assessment year 1997-98 and in that it rejected the claim of the
assessee towards the purchase returns. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the
assessing authority the assessee had filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority
in STA. 76 of 2002. The said authority by its order dated 27.3.2002 was pleased to
allow the appeal in part and thereafter pleased to remand the matter to the assessing
authority to re-do the matter keeping in view certain observations made by him in the
course of the order.
4. After such remand the assessing authority has passed yet another
order on 8.8.2002 rejecting the claim of the assessee for exclusion of the purchase
returns from the total and taxable turnover of the dealer. Aggrieved by that, the
assessee has unsuccessfully filed the first appeal and also the second appeal before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal while rejecting the assessee’s appeal has observed as
under:
“We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is seen
that most of the purchases of copra are directly from farmers by the
appellant. More over the goods are not transported under the cover of
S.T.(Rev) No.303/2007. 2
documents prescribed under the Act. Further it is found that the appellant
has failed to produce any document which prove the acceptance of the
alleged goods by the sellers. As this be the position, we are of the view
that the order of the assessing authority as well as the finding of the
authority below is according to law.”
Aggrieved by the said findings of the Tribunal, the assessee is before us in this Tax
Revision Case.
5. The assessee has raised the following questions of law for our
consideration. They are as under:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Tribunal justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners.
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Tribunal was justified in not relying on Ann.Eletter dt. 9.11.1997 which
bears the seal of the Sales Tax Check Post.
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of purchase return.
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition made by the authorities
below without any materials.”
6. Sri.E.P.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee
would submit that the assessee is an illiterate person and therefore while returning the
goods to his seller he did not choose to send the goods by issuing appropriate delivery
note as prescribed under the Act. Therefore the assessing authority was not justified in
disallowing the claim of the assessee towards exclusion of the purchase returns made
by the assessee to his seller.
7. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by
Sri.E.P.Govindan, learned counsel for the assessee.
S.T.(Rev) No.303/2007. 3
8. The assessee had purchased copra from different dealers. If for any
reason he wanted to return the copra so purchased, he should have done it with the
help of the document as prescribed under the Act. In the instant case, it is the case of
the assessee that he has returned a part of the goods to the seller, but had not
produced the delivery note before the assessing authority. In the absence of
appropriate documentary evidence for having returned the goods to the seller, from
whom he had purchased, the claim of the assessee for exclusion of the purchase return
of the copra cannot be granted by the assessing authority. Keeping all these aspects in
view, the assessing authority has completed the assessment and quantified the tax
liability. The conclusion reached by the assessing authority is accepted by the First
Appellate Authority and by the Tribunal.
9. Having gone through the orders of assessment passed by the
assessing authority and the orders passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that
none of the authorities have committed any error, which would call for our interference in
this Tax Revision Case. Therefore the Revision Petition requires to be rejected.
Accordingly it is rejected. The questions of law framed by the assessee are answered
against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
sb/dk