IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 OT.Rev.No. 35 of 2010() ----------------------- TA.248/2009 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT:- ------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.MAR ATHANASIOS COLLEGE FOR ADVANCES STUDIES (MACFAST), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA KAMATH RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENT:- -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, ALONG WITH OTRV NO. 34 OF 2010 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ============================================ O.T.R.V.Nos.34, 35 & 36 /2010 ============================================ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The orders under challenge are penalty orders confirmed by the Tribunal for alleged evasion of tax due for the laptop supplied by the petitioner college to the students. Petitioner's case is that petitioner is not engaged in purchase or sale of goods as a dealer. However, in order to help the students to get laptop at moderate cost, they have arranged massive procurements and supply of laptop to the students, who are doing M.C.A. course. Even though petitioner is not a regular trader but is an educational institution, technically, petitioner becomes a dealer on account of the purchase and sale of laptop to students. However, we do not think contumacious conduct is attributable to the petitioner on OTRV35,36&37/10 -:2:- account of the procurement and supply of laptop or personal computer at moderate cost to the students. We, therefore, allow the revisions in part by limiting the penalty to tax amount and interest thereon for delay, if any in payment of tax. The Intelligence Officer is directed to modify the penalty orders by reducing the amount equal to tax and interest thereon. The amount paid under interim orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) should be credited and the balance should be paid by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of revised order. If petitioner has any dealings of the type mentioned above in future, it is for the petitioner to take registration and remit tax. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.