IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 ST.Rev.No.19 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ TA.No.180/2006 OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 22-2-2007) .................... REVISIOIN PETITIONER/APPELLANT:- ---------------------------------------------------- M/S. RATHNA STEEL CORPORATION, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY A.RAJESH, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.19 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER K.M.Joseph, J. The petitioner is an assessee registered under the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act (“Act” for short). It calls in question the legality of Annexure-C order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessing authority passed best judgment assessment taking note of the inspection carried out. On the finding of suppression under the inspection made, he has ordered addition of three times the suppression found. In appeal carried by the petitioner/assessee, the first appellate authority has reduced it to two times ie. actual suppression plus an equal amount. This order of the appellate authority is confirmed by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. (2). The questions of law framed by the assessee for our consideration and decision are as follows: “A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in sustaining the addition as refixed by the First Appellate Authority? B. Is not the addition to the turnover excessive and arbitrary in so far as no pattern of suppression is established against the revision petitioner?” S.T.Rev.19/2008 -2- (3). We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. (4). It is not in dispute that there is an inspection and there is suppression. The original addition made by the assessing authority was interfered with, by the first appellate authority and he has reduced it to two times the addition which is found by the Tribunal to be only actual suppression plus an equal amount. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner attempted to contend that there is no pattern of suppression noticed, having regard to the suppression detected as also the actual addition, we find that no question of law can be said to be raised by the petitioner. They are pure questions of fact and the findings cannot be characterised as perverse. (5). In such circumstances, we find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the questions of law raised are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS