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 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 198 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.222/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.KERALA TRADERS, KARUVANCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 198 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the revision petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that penalty levied under Section 29A(4) for transport of goods at low value is not tenable because the load of copra transported was of inferior quality. The penalty levied is only a small amount of Rs. 9,000/-. However, petitioner apprehends addition in assessment on account of penalty order sustained in appeal by the Tribunal. Admittedly the value of copra shown in the transport document is far below the market value and is only 50 to 55% of the actual market value. However, the petitioner's explanation is that the copra transported was sweepings from the copra yard and so much so it was of inferior quality which would not fetch prevailing market value. Counsel referred to copies of delivery notes produced in court and contended that the entire sales were at prevailing market price and for quality copra petitioner has 2 billed only market value. However, we are unable to accept this contention because without proof this Court cannot hold that the truck load of copra transported was of inferior quality justifying low value declared by the petitioner. Government Pleader submitted that the quality of copra was verified by the Officer who detained it and collected security because only on physical verification the goods were found to be of normal type copra. In any case, since sample is not retained, there is no scope for enquiry about the quality of copra now. However, we make it clear that if petitioner is not generally engaged in sale of copra at below market price, penalty levied in this case should not be the basis for any unreasonable addition. It is open to the petitioner to contest the assessments if made with arbitrary or unreasonable addition based on this penalty order. With this observation, we dismiss the Revision Petition. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3