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 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 129 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.186/2008 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... PETITIONER/ASSESSEE: --------------------------- S.NAJEEM MUSALIAR, M/S.NAJEEM CASHEW INDUSTRIES, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- S.T.Revision No. 129 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 O R D E R ----------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised pertains to disallowance of driage claimed by petitioner in the assessment which is confirmed by the Tribunal in appeal, we have heard counsel appearing for petitioner and Government Pleader for respondents. 2. Petitioner imported 48,357 bags of raw cashewnuts from abroad and sold 44,735 on highseas basis to a buyer in Kerala. For the balance 3623 bags imported by the petitioner, petitioner claimed driage of 1578.500 bags. The Assessing Officer noticed abnormality in the claim because the claim works out to 43.57% and therefore the claim was rejected as without any bona fide and the claim allowed was 3%. On appeal the assessment was confirmed by the appellate authorities including the Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the estimate of the percentage of loss as 43.57% is incorrect because percentage should have been reckoned with the total import. However, if petitioner's claim is correct then the purchaser in STR.129/09 2 highseas should have been granted driage by the petitioner, which is not done. Driage should be only based on weight and not by volume. Further the driage claimed is also not believable because in the course of shipment such driage cannot obviously take place. Eventhough counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has additional evidence such as survey reports, we do not think the order of assessment granting reasonable driage at 3% confirmed by the Tribunal can be interferred by us based on fresh evidence being produced by the petitioner. We therefore dismiss the S.T. Revision case. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb