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 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Appl..No. 1 of 2008() ------------------------ R2.60494/2004/TX of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IN SUO-MOTU PROCEEDINGS: ------------------------------------------------- T.B.SAJEEV, PROPRIETOR, EMERALD CORPORATION, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 015. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER - I, IST CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS SALES TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH S.T. APPEAL NO.2/2008 ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the appeals filed by the very same assessee is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act as held by the Tribunal. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Even though counsel for the appellant has relied on decision of this court in P.K.DAMODARAN V. STATE OF KERALA (2004) 12 KTR 133, the correctness of which itself is to be considered in detail, we feel in this particular case, in the return filed and in the original assessment appellant claimed exemption of the entire turnover as second sales. However, later on noticing that appellant had brought goods from outside and sold as first sale in the State, the assessment was revised under Section 19 bringing to tax escaped turnover. The petitioner admitted the offence and compounded the same by 2 remittance of maximum compounding fee of Rs.2 lakhs. In the circumstances, this is a clear case where the turnover was escaped in the original assessment and consequently revised assessment was made under Section 19. Interest under Section 23(3A) read with Section 23 (3) is payable when assessment is revised under Section 19 demanding additional tax. Appeals are consequently dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms