IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 255 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.333/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIOER (APPELLANT/ASSESSEE) ----------------------------------------------------------- MARBLE CRAFT, 34/1391, ANCHUMANA, BYE-PASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024. REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR UMMED BHANDARI) BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): (REVENUE/RESPONDENT) ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.255 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal sustaining first appellate authority's order wherein he has reduced the addition on account of suppression in freight and addition of gross profit thereon from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs. We have heard Adv. Sri.K.N.Sreekumar appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the Tribunal's order, we feel that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the total turnover for the purpose of deciding whether percentage of addition is reasonable or not. Petitioner's turnover includes sale of marble, granite, tiles etc. When dispute was only in respect of the suppression in accounting freight for marble, Tribunal should have considered the turnover of marble and granite only for the purpose of deciding whether total addition sustained is reasonable or not. In this 2 case the compounding fee paid is only Rs.950/- which according to the petitioner, will not justify massive addition on account of suppression in freight. However, Government Pleader submitted that compounding is in respect of a single transaction, whereas in assessment all similar suppressions in freight would have been taken into account. After considering both sides, we feel refixation of addition on account of suppression at Rs.10 lakhs will serve the ends of justice. We, therefore, allow the revision partly by sustaining the addition at Rs.10 lakhs as against Rs.13 lakhs sustained by the first Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms