IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 56 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2009 IN TA.126/2009 OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- VANJU KAMAL, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL HILLWAY, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQUE. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = S.T. REV. 56 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair. J. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Government Pleader who appeared, at admission stage. 2. The revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the first appellate authority, modifying the penalty levied under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for evasion of tax. 3. Revision petitioner was running a bar hotel during the relevant year. During inspection suppression was noticed. Thus Department found that sales accounted are not at the rates prescribed by petitioner himself in the price list published for sale of liquor in Bar. Percentage of gross profit was estimated based on price list maintained by the petitioner. Since the estimated sale turn, over on this basis, was below the accounted sales and since suppression was noticed during inspection, turn over returned was rejected and estimated by applying gross profit at 71% which is the rate applicable, if liquor was sold at the rate published in the price list. Addition of gross profit was reduced in first appeal firm 71% to 55% which was ST REV. 56/2010 2 confirmed by the Tribunal. 4. Even though counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no basis for estimation of turn over by applying gross profit at 55%, we do not think we should substitute our estimate because it is not for us to modify the estimation of gross profit made by the lower authorities based on some norms. Admittedly, the turn over declared was verified with the turnover based on price list maintained by the appellant. Of course, there is some force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that bottle sales would have been made to customers at lower gross profit though not permitted by Excise Laws. However, taking in to account this contention and since the gross profit fixed itself is 55%, we reduce penalty to 11/2 times the tax as against two times confirmed by Tribunal. Revision is allowed modifying the penalty order to the above extent. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-