IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 29 of 2010() ------------------------ TA.135/2009 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT ---------------------------------------- JOHNY THOMAS, JOHNY SAGARIGA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 30 OF 2010 STRV NO. 31 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 29,30 & 31 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised pertains to additions sustained in assessment confirmed by Tribunal. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 2. The income tax authorities conducted search in the business premises of the respondent-assessee. The details gathered on inspection were transmitted by them to the sales tax department. In the enquiry it was revealed that in the course of three years, that is from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, respondent sent DDs for above Rs. 75 lakhs to a Mumbai supplier of audio cassettes by name Jet Speed Audios (P) Ltd. Since petitioner contended before the departmental authorities that purchases were made for wayside hawkers, the addresses of so- called purchasers were collected from petitioner's records by the Department. Even though department sent notices to these parties in ST Rev. Nos. 29,30 & 31/2010 2 whose name purchases were accounted by the petitioner, namely, Audiocon Industries, Star Audios, Arun Audios, Lucky Audios, Dhakshin Audios, and Sangeetha Audios, all the notices were returned stating that these parties are fictitious entities. Even though petitioner's case is that he was acting as buying agent for these parties in Kerala, petitioner did not have any agreement with the purchasers or suppliers engaging him as their agent. Admittedly the Mumbai manufacturer of audios had a branch in Kerala and according to the petitioner, all these cassettes for which payment was made in the name of Mumbai company, were supplied by the local branch of the Mumbai company. As rightly held by the Tribunal, we do not know why local hawkers needed the assistance of the petitioner to purchase the audio cassettes from the Kerala branch of the Mumbai company. In fact there is no explanation as to why payment was made by the petitioner to Mumbai instead of making payment to the Kerala branch of the Mumbai supplier if goods were delivered by the local branch in Kerala. From the records produced by the Special Govt. Pleader we find that the petitioner does not have a consistent stand with regard to transaction. ST Rev. Nos. 29,30 & 31/2010 3 In our view, the Tribunal rightly held that these DDs sent by the respondent to the supplier in Mumbai represent consideration of unaccounted purchases and department rightly made assessment estimating turnover by adding gross profit to the purchase price. We do not find any question of law arising from the findings on facts and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal. Consequently ST Revs. are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk ST Rev. Nos. 29,30 & 31/2010 4