IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 179 of 2010() ------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA.26/2008 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM.) .................... REVN.PETITIONER/ASSESSEE -------------------------------------------- P.ABDUL SALAM, ARAMAM METAL CRUSHER, WEST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- S.T.Rev. No.179 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal sustaining the first appellate authority's order upholding the assessment for the year 2003-04. 2. We have heard Dr.K.B.Mohammedkutty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The assessee is running a stone crushing unit, and he applied for and obtained compounding facility for payment of tax for the single machine he had. However, later on inspection, the Department noticed purchase of 2 more machines. Consequent upon this finding, the Assessing Officer demanded tax at compounding rate for the three machines. When this was contested in appeal, the first appellate authority directed regular assessment under Section 17(3) based on turn over for the sales made. On second appeal, the first appellate authority's order is confirmed by STRev.No.179/2010 -2- the Tribunal against which, this revision is filed. 4. After hearing both sides, we feel interference is called for only to the limited extent of giving option to the assessee either to go for regular assessment based on turn over to be estimated, if not fully supported by records or to accept tax at compounded rate for all the machines found during inspection. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the size of the 3 machines and the tax payable at compounding rate if the assessee accept it, or to pass regular assessment based on turn over to be estimated. This sales tax revision is disposed of modifying the order of the Tribunal to the extent stated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg