IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 174 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.305/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------- M/S.JOS ELECTRICALS TRADING CO., JOS TRUST BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER(ASSMT.)IV, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 174 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Two questions are raised in the Revision filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal disposing of assessment appeal for the year 2004-05. So far as addition sustained is concerned, we do not find any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal because 3% addition sustained by the Tribunal is on account of irregularties and inadequacies in the accounts maintained by the petitioner. Therefore revision will stand dismissed on the challenge against addition sustained by the Tribunal. 2. One another ground raised is disallowance of sales return to the extent of Rs. 16 lakhs. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure 4 statement which shows bill-war details , credit note numbers, etc. However, strangely credit notes dates are not mentioned in the statement. In any case, we feel if sales return are genuine then petitioner should be granted relief. However, in order to prove sales STRV 174 of 2009 2 return it is for the assessee to prove that sales return was claimed in the first place as a deduction in the turnover along with monthly returns filed following the month for which sales return was effected by issuing credit note. Secondly physical delivery of goods back to the assessee should be proved with reference to LR and other documents of transport or any other evidence. In view of the details furnished in Annexure 4 statement, we feel one more opportunity can be given to the assessee to product entire evidence before the assessing officer. The assessing officer will verify the monthly returns and if claims are made along with monthly returns, evidence produced will be considered for allowing deduction or otherwise if claims are not made in monthly returns then the assessing officer can again turn down the claim for deduction. Revision on this issue is disposed of directing the assessing officer to reconsider the matter based on evidence produced and after verifying the monthly returns filed by the assessee. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk STRV 174 of 2009 3