IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 130 of 2008() ------------------------- TA.208/2007 of AGRL.I.T. & STAT, ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SAI RAJESH, KING LIQUOR BAR & RESTAURANT PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VIN0D CHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev. 130 No. OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Challenge is against the order of the Tribunal confirming addition sustained in first appeal, both in regard to sales turnover as well as in respect of purchase turnover. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent. Admittedly during inspection massive quantity of liquor found in petitioner's premises did not have the seal of Beverages Corporation. When the department alleged production and sale of spurious liquor petitioner compounded the offence and remitted the compounding fee. Consequently while making assessment addition was made to the turnover. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence of manufacture and so much so there is no scope for levy of tax under Section 5A of the Act on the purchase turnover of raw material. Indian made foreign liquor is made by mixing malt or fruit spirit, with wzre 2 neutral alcohol which is rectified spirit. Further for aroma, colour and other flavours are added to make the final product. When there is spurious production of liquor, petitioner has to source raw material. Since no tax is admittedly paid on purchase turnover, liability is rightly fixed under Section 5A. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently Revision Petition is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3