IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 227 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.43/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVN.PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------------ M/S.ULIKKAL RUBBER & AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ULIKKA P.O., ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 705. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/REVENUE --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.227 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioner, a Co-operative Society is challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which held that without Form No.25 obtained from the purchaser, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption on purchase turnover of raw cashew nut. Government Pleader has relied on decision of this court reported in REHMATH TRADING COMPANY VS. SALES TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER reported in (1990) 78 STC 324 wherein this court has held that Form No.25 is mandatory for granting exemption on purchase turnover of commodity that is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. 2. On going through the orders of the Tribunal and that of the lower authorities and after considering the contention of both sides, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal because commodity purchased and stated to be sold by the petitioner is 2 raw cashew nut which is an item taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. Any purchaser who claims that his purchase is not the last purchase in the State, has to furnish details of his local sales and corresponding certificate of purchase issued by the purchaser which is Form No.25 prescribed under Rule 32(14) of the KGST Rules. In fact, the declaration issued by the purchaser in Form No.25 is the only basis provided under the Rules for granting exemption on purchase turnover. Petitioner's case is that the purchaser did not issue Form No.25 and petitioner has instituted legal action against such party. There is no need for this court to consider petitioner's dispute with the purchaser because it was open to the petitioner to make it a condition for the purchaser to issue Form No.25 for sale of the commodity. Therefore, this is only clear mismanagement of the affairs of the petitioner in selling raw cashew nut to the parties without ensuring that they are registered dealers under the KGST Act and that they issue 3 Form No.25 against every sale for the petitioner to claim exemption. In the absence of Form No.25 department cannot hold the purchaser liable as the last purchaser merely based on the invoice issued by the petitioner. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the revision case filed by the assesee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms