IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 86 of 2008() ------------------------ TA.101/2006 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: -------------------- SRI.C.T.KURIAN, CHANGAZHASSERIL, TEEKOY. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEKCHAND THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T.R.V. No. 86 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. This revision is filed against Annexure H order of the Tribunal partly rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner and partly allowing the appeal. Petitioner was engaged in purchase and sale of timber (rubber wood) which is an item taxable at two points of sale in the State. Petitioner's case is that under the Vth Schedule to the KGST Act, tax on timber is payable on the first sale, if the first sale is to a person other than a registered dealer, or to a registered dealer other than for subsequent sale. On the other hand, if sale is by registered dealer for resale in the State, tax payable on first sale is at 10% and on last sale at 2% . Petitioner's case is that on the first purchase tax was collected at 12% by M/s. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. and petitioner being an unregistered dealer is not liable to pay tax on last sale at 2% under column 7 of the Vth Schedule. Government Pleader on the other hand 2 contended that petitioner had turnover above Rs. 2 lakhs even as per accounts, and therefore petitioner ought to have taken registration and was liable to pay tax at 2%. Further he has also pointed the discrepancies in purchase and sale value pointed out by the Tribunal in the appellate order. 2. We find from the orders produced that original assessment on substantial turnover is at higher rate of tax at 12%. However, in first appeal,the petitioner being second seller, rate of tax was reduced to 2% and turnover addition is substantially brought down which is again reduced by the Tribunal by partly allowing the appeal. Even though the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that collection of tax at 12% by M/s. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. from the petitioner will justify the petitioner's claim for exemption from tax on sale at last point and counsel relied on the decision of this Court in GOWRI GROUP V. SALES TAX OFFICER, (2006) 143 STC 194, we do not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order because purchase figures cannot be correlated with the sale figures for the year 2001-02. Purchase value accounted was Rs. 17,85,240/- whereas the sale value 3 written is Rs. 30,34,600/-. Position for the next year, that is 2002-03, is worse. Purchase value accounted is Rs. 4,86,994/- whereas the sale value accounted is Rs. 59,01,811/-. For the year 2003-04, the purchase value accounted was Rs. 81,75,990/-, whereas the sale value accounted was Rs. 73,98,907/- resulting in loss. It is in evidence that petitioner neither maintained books of accounts nor took registration or filed returns and assessments were the result of enquiry conducted by the department. Since the Tribunal, considering the figures, found that total tax liability even after limiting tax on the petitioner at 2% will not account for actual incidence of tax, there is no scope for granting any relief. We therefore dismiss the Tax Revision. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4