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 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 82 of 2009() ------------------------ TA.29/2008 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- M/S.VENJARAMOODU CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.299, VENJARAMOODU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.82 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. At the admission stage, Government Pleader took notice and we have heard both sides. 2. The first issue raised pertaining to addition sustained, calls for no interference because no question of law arises from the finding of the Tribunal. The remaining issues pertain to disallowance of exemption claimed based on two Form No.25 issued for sale of rubber by the petitioner to other dealers who issued the Forms. In one case, Form No.25 was lost and a duplicate attested by the Assessing Officer of the purchaser was produced by the petitioner. Even though Government Pleader submitted that there is no provision for issuing duplicate, we do not think there is any justification to decline relief because the Assessing Officer attested duplicate only after being satisfied that there was no misuse of the original by the purchasing dealer. We, therefore, reverse the order of the Tribunal and allow the 2 revision on this issue directing the Assessing Officer to accept the duplicate Form No.25 produced by the petitioner with the attestation by the Assessing Officer of the purchasing dealer and grant exemption. Another Form No.25 produced by the petitioner was rejected for the reason that there is discrepancy in the quantity of rubber in as much as against 3700 kilos, what is written the Form 25 was 3500 kilos. Here the Form 25 produced was the original and the correction was carried out with attestation by purchasing dealer. If there is any doubt about the genuineness of the entries for possible misuse of Form 25, the department should conduct enquiry against the dealers who issued such Form No.25. We do not find any justification for rejecting a Form No.25 merely because there is a correction which was duly attested by the registered dealer who issued it. We, therefore, direct acceptance of this Form No.25 also and grant exemption to the petitioner. The 3 Tribunal's order to this extent is also reversed. The S.T. revision case is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms