IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 T.R.C.No. 233 of 2002(T) ------------------ ---------------------- ORDER DATED 15.11.2001 IN TA.553/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.N.SUNDARESWARAN, KOLLAM. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) & SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS TAX REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- T.R.C.No.233 of 2002 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. Dr.K.B.Mohamed Kutty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, as usual, very fairly submits that the legal issue raised in this tax revision case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of State of Kerala v. M/s.Bharat Rubber Industries in S.T.Rev.No.17 of 2005 decided on 30th January, 2008. In the said decision this Court has observed as under: “9. We are of the view that, the revision filed by the State is only to be allowed. It is to be noted that the Form 18 declaration which is admittedly in tune with the proviso contemplated that, the raw materials which are purchased by the dealer is made use of for the purpose of production of finished goods. But, it may not be correct to say that the purport of the declaration is only that the purchasing dealer makes use of the raw material for the production of finished goods or for packing of the finished goods alone. The purport of the proviso as also the declaration is not only that the purchasing dealer must make use of the raw material for production of finished goods or for packing of finished goods but it must further be sold either in the State or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, so that the finished goods are subject to tax either under the State Act or Central Act. The provision is intended to T.R.C.No.233 of 2002 2 promote manufacture of goods. It is to avoid the rise in the cost of production and consequently the sale price that the concept of concessional rate of tax is embodied in Section 5(3). Keeping this principle in view, we take the view that, the reasoning of the Tribunal that the respondent assessee has used the raw materials for the purpose it is stated in the declaration cannot be sustained. We are of the firm view that, the respondent assessee in this case has not made use of the raw materials for the purpose for which he gave declaration in so far as he exported the goods after the production of the goods whereby the goods escaped from the liability to pay tax under the State Act and also under the Central Act. In this view of the matter the questions of law raised by the petitioner is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.” 2. Respectfully following the observations made in the aforesaid decision, this tax revision case is disposed of and the questions of law framed by the assessee are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns