IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 126 of 2008() ------------------------- TA.288/2005 of STAT,TVM. .................... REVISION PETTITIONER/ APPELLANT --------------------------------------------------- M/S. SHAS CASHEW COMPANY PALLICKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHIHAN SHAH. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009,THE COURT ON 29/09/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.126 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. The question raised pertains to addition made on account of alleged unaccounted purchase of raw cashew nut. The assessee's case is that the original purchase cost accounted is for the value of imported cashew. However, since the item purchased was of inferior quality, the foreign supplier granted a massive discount of around Rs.30 lakhs, which was sought to be proved by the assessee by producing a copy of the agreement between assessee and the foreign supplier. All the authorities rejected the genuineness of the document and the estimation of unaccounted purchase of raw cashew nut made by the Assessing Officer was partly confirmed by the Tribunal. Before us also, counsel for the petitioner canvassed for acceptance of the agreement. We are unable to take a view different from what is taken by the Tribunal because in the first place, original agreement is not 2 available. Secondly, the agreement is substantially delayed and is lacking in particulars. Further, there is no proof of third party survey for the foreign supplier to entertain the claim. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the agreement as genuine. Consequently revision case is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms