IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 231 of 2010() ------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN TA.183/2008 DATED 25/09/2009 of THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT IN TA -------------------- M/S.SUMI INDUSTRIES,PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY K.N.SIVADASAN, MANAGING PARTNER BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- STATE OF KERALA MR.MUHAMMED RAFIQUE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- ST Rev. No.231 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the assessment of turnover of inter-state purchase of goods against Form H issued, which were not exported as such, as local sale is tenable or not. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The revision petitioner purchased components against Form H issued to outside Kerala suppliers stating that purchases are for export. However, goods purchased were only partly exported as such and balance were said to be utilised in the manufacture of final products, which were exported. The contention of the revision petitioner that consumption of components in manufacture of goods for export is sufficient for making purchases of components against Form H issued, is not acceptable because the declaration in Form-H is that goods purchased are against specific orders for export, which means that goods purchased should be exported as S.T.Rev.No.231/2010 -2- such. Even though learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders, reported in 2010 (36) VST 1, learned Government Pleader submitted that the decision has no application in this case. We do not think there is any need to consider this controversy because what is stated in the assessment order is that the assessee agreed for the assessment. This was contested by the assessee by filing appeals against the assessment. However, the Tribunal upheld completion of assessment, against which this revision is filed. 4. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that assessment is a Section 17B assessment, which is a summary assessment, where agreement for assessment could be made even orally. While considering whether the assessee agreed for assessment of the turnover, we have to look into an alternative available to the Officer, who considered the transaction as violation of issue of Form H, and in the absence of penalty levied for misuse of the declaration, we feel the Officers' statement in the order that the assessee agreed for the assessment of the turnover is a genuine statement. S.T.Rev.No.231/2010 -3- We, therefore, reject the revision petition but make it clear that for the same transaction, the assessee should be called upon to pay penalty for misuse of Form H. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg