IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 OT.Rev.No. 26 of 2009() ----------------------- TAVAT.255/2008 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN TA. ---------------------------------------------------- SMT.KHADEEJA,PROPRIETOR, M/S.WOOD CRAFT INDUSTRIES, CHETTAMKUZHI (VIA),VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH SRI.V.V.PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... O.T. Rev. No.26 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Challenge is against appellate order issued by the Tribunal confirming penalty levied on the petitioner for unaccounted sales made to SIDCO, a Government agency. Even though counsel submitted that petitioner has accounted sales, we find that the petitioner's claim is without any bonafides because Tribunal has considered the two sets of invoices issued by the petitioner and compared the same with the purchases accounted by SIDCO which is a Government agency. Petitioner's sale bills did not stand tally with purchase accounted by the SIDCO. Further, petitioner has no explanation as to why two sets of invoices were issued for the same transaction. Since the Tribunal on facts found that petitioner has made unaccounted sales, there is no 2 scope for interference with Tribunal's order confirming penalty. The O.T. Revision case is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms