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 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 46 of 2007() ------------------------ TA.287/2006 of S.T.A.T., ADDL.BENCH-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------------------- M/S. PACKS SALES CORPORATION, 41/1929, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 18. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.46 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The revision is filed against order of the Tribunal sustaining penalty levied under Section 29A(4) of the KGST Act. WE have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The penalty pertains to transport of consignment of electrical switch board for a flat complex. The petitioner's case is that the goods were purchased from Hyderabad and in the course of interstate movement, goods were sold by endorsement of title in favour of the purchaser. However, it is seen that goods were detected on 22.12.2004 whereas invoice was dated 21.12.2004. Further, consignment was seen transported in a private car by a sister concern of the petitioner. The driver of the vehicle gave statements in terms of this. Obviously the transaction is a local sale after taking delivery from the carrier. No documents were produced or available before us about identity of the 2 owner of the car which transported the goods, about endorsement in the lorry receipt or about the purchaser confirming the transaction to the department. In view of the concurrent finding of fact by all the authorities including the Tribunal against the petitioner that the transaction is a local sale, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order in revision. The revision case is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms