IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 S.T.Rev..No. 142 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ORDER DATED 30.8.2006 IN TA.98/2005 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------- SMT.ANICE MATHEW, ST.MARY'S WOOD WORKS, KOLAPRA. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN & SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.142 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of June, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax act, 1963 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee in this revision petition filed under Section 41 of the Act calls in question the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A.No.98 of 2005 dated 30th August, 2006. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the orders passed by the first appellate authority in S.T.A.No.1035 of 2004 dated 28.1.2005. 3. The assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 had filed her annual returns in Form 9 conceding a total and taxable turnover of Rs.78100/-. 4. For the purpose of completion of the assessment for the assessment year in question, the assessing authority had directed the assessee to produce the books of accounts maintained in the regular course of business for his verification. After verification of the books of accounts, the assessing authority has rejected the same and thereafter has issued a pre-assessment notice, inter alia, indicating to the assessee that he intends to reject the returns filed and intends to proceed to complete the best judgment assessment for the following reasons: “1. You have not maintained the accounts under Rule 32 (15) of the KGST Act and Rules. S.T.Rev.No.142 of 2008 2 2. You have not furnished the details of materials purchased for making the furniture. 3. You have not filed the details of saw dust and fire wood. 4. The Intelligence Officer (Commercial Investigation, Commercial Taxes, Idukki at Kumily reported that you have purchased latex and Sheet rubber from dealers and cultivators using the trade name St.Mary's Rubber works, Kolapra and using the Old RC No.22111681. You have used only one purchase bill and produced the same for verification. But as per the report of I.O.(C.I.) purchase bill No.6 dt.20.5.03 you have purchased 1000 Kgs. of Sheet Rubber amounting to Rs.47500/-. But you have not disclosed the same in the monthly return or Form I B. The Agrl. Income Tax & Sales Tax Inspector of this office also conducted enquiry and report that your son said that you are collecting latex and the local dealers said that you are doing business of sheet rubber also.” 5. After receipt of the pre-assessment notice, the assessee had filed her objections. To say the least, the objections that was filed by the petitioner is as vague as the vagueness could be. 6. After receipt of the objections so filed, the assessing authority has completed the assessment by confirming the proposals made by him in the pre- assessment notice. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority in S.T.A.No.1035 of 2004. The first appellate authority by its orders dated 28.1.2005 has modified the quantification done by the assessing authority and has reduced the additions made by the assessing authority while completing the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04. S.T.Rev.No.142 of 2008 3 8. Aggrieved by the orders so passed, the assessee had carried the matter by way of second appeal before the Tribunal in T.A.No.98 of 2005. 9. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had canvassed the following contentions: “The learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant argued that the addition sustained for omission and suppression detected by the Intelligence Officer (CI) Idukki is unsustainable. The appellant has not purchased latex and sheet rubber using another trade name and old R.C.Number. The assessing authority without conducting any proper enquiry, made an addition. Estimation on the sales value of sawdust and firewood, purchase cost of raw materials other than timber are excessive. It is submitted that the appeal may be allowed.” 10. The Tribunal being satisfied with the orders passed by the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal and has confirmed the orders passed by the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before us in this tax revision case. 11. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “1. Since the assessment order was issued based on the report of the Inspector of AIT & ST attached to the office of the AIT & ST Office, II Circle Office Thodupuzha and since the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the Petitioner and without furnishing a copy of the Enquiry Report to the Petitioner requesting her to show cause against the enquiry report whether the assessment order itself is justified? In the circumstances whether its confirmation by the appellate authorities is sustainable in law? 2. Since the Petitioner has not purchased the sheet rubber on 20.5.2003 and not issued any bill muchless Bill No.6 dated 20.5.03 to anybody and failure on the part of the authorities to furnish the copy of the proof submitted by the Intelligence Officer regarding the alleged transaction done by her S.T.Rev.No.142 of 2008 4 by using the old RC No.22111681 whether it is justified in finalizing the assessment by the assessing authority and its confirmation by the appellate authorities is also legal and sustainable? 3. Whether the Assessing authority is justified in not giving a copy of the enquiry report and statements taken by the Intelligence Officer attached to the office of the assessing authority to the Petitioner before taking a decision based on it against the Petitioner? 4. Is Annexure A3 order of the Appellate Tribunal legal, valid and sustainable in law.” 12. At the outset, we would say, that, the questions of law that are framed by the assessee for our consideration and decision were never urged or argued before the Tribunal. For the first time those questions of law cannot be raised before us in a revision petition filed under Section 41 of the Act. The law on the point is now well settled and reiteration of the same is unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition. 13. Apart from this, the parameters of the revisional powers of this Court is stated in the statute book. A revision petition can be entertained and considered by this Court, only if the Tribunal has failed to consider a question of law or has erroneously considered a question of law, and not otherwise. 14. In the instant case, the Tribunal after going through the statement made by the assessee's son, and also the shop inspection report, has come to a positive conclusion that the assessing authority is justified in making certain additions to the conceded turnover of the dealer. The additions so made was on a rational basis and not on whimsical basis. The addition so made by the assessing authority is modified by the first appellate authority. The order of S.T.Rev.No.142 of 2008 5 assessment and the order of the first appellate authority are on estimation basis and in our opinion, no question of law would arise. 15. Therefore, no question of law would arise for our consideration and decision in this case. Therefore, this tax revision case requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 16. Consequently, I.A.No.1104 of 2008 is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk.