IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 86 of 2008()
1. SRI.C.T.KURIAN, CHANGAZHASSERIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :27/08/2008
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
S.T.R.V. No. 86 OF 2008
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
This revision is filed against Annexure H order of the Tribunal
partly rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner and partly allowing the
appeal. Petitioner was engaged in purchase and sale of timber (rubber
wood) which is an item taxable at two points of sale in the State.
Petitioner’s case is that under the Vth Schedule to the KGST Act, tax
on timber is payable on the first sale, if the first sale is to a person other
than a registered dealer, or to a registered dealer other than for
subsequent sale. On the other hand, if sale is by registered dealer for
resale in the State, tax payable on first sale is at 10% and on last sale at
2% . Petitioner’s case is that on the first purchase tax was collected at
12% by M/s. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. and petitioner being an
unregistered dealer is not liable to pay tax on last sale at 2% under
column 7 of the Vth Schedule. Government Pleader on the other hand
2
contended that petitioner had turnover above Rs. 2 lakhs even as per
accounts, and therefore petitioner ought to have taken registration and
was liable to pay tax at 2%. Further he has also pointed the
discrepancies in purchase and sale value pointed out by the Tribunal in
the appellate order.
2. We find from the orders produced that original assessment on
substantial turnover is at higher rate of tax at 12%. However, in first
appeal,the petitioner being second seller, rate of tax was reduced to 2%
and turnover addition is substantially brought down which is again
reduced by the Tribunal by partly allowing the appeal. Even though
the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that collection of tax at
12% by M/s. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. from the petitioner will justify
the petitioner’s claim for exemption from tax on sale at last point and
counsel relied on the decision of this Court in GOWRI GROUP V.
SALES TAX OFFICER, (2006) 143 STC 194, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order because purchase figures
cannot be correlated with the sale figures for the year 2001-02.
Purchase value accounted was Rs. 17,85,240/- whereas the sale value
3
written is Rs. 30,34,600/-. Position for the next year, that is 2002-03, is
worse. Purchase value accounted is Rs. 4,86,994/- whereas the sale
value accounted is Rs. 59,01,811/-. For the year 2003-04, the purchase
value accounted was Rs. 81,75,990/-, whereas the sale value accounted
was Rs. 73,98,907/- resulting in loss. It is in evidence that petitioner
neither maintained books of accounts nor took registration or filed
returns and assessments were the result of enquiry conducted by the
department. Since the Tribunal, considering the figures, found that
total tax liability even after limiting tax on the petitioner at 2% will not
account for actual incidence of tax, there is no scope for granting any
relief. We therefore dismiss the Tax Revision.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(V. K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
4