IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 24 of 2007() ------------------------ TA.164/2005 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SMT.NEETHA JOY, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.SEVANA INDUSTRIES, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SMT.K.P.NISHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 24 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. This Revision is filed by the assessee against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the year 2002-03 raising the following questions of law: A. Whether the Tribunal is justified in finding that the addition to the turnover made by the assessing authority is reasonable particularly when the entire suppression was covered by the inspection and there was no genuine reason for further addition to the taxable turnover? B. Whether the Tribunal is justified in finding that there can be probable omission and suppression including turnover under Section 5A? C. Whether the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the addition to the taxable turnover made by the assessing authority without considering the fact that the assessee was dealing in taxable as well as non-taxable goods? 2 We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader and have gone through the orders of all the three authorities. Even though petitioner's case is that addition sustained by the Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary and there is no justification for levy of tax under Section 5A of the KGST Act, we are unable to agree with the contentions. In fact during inspection it was found that assessee's suppression in sales turnover is more than returned turnover. The assessee had also admitted non maintenance of books of accounts and paid compounding fee. The Assessing Officer therefore made addition three times the suppressed turnover towards possible omission in sales and purchases. Even though modification is made in first appeal, the Tribunal reversed it on second appeal filed by the revenue, because having regard to the irregularities found modification made by the appellate authority was found to be untenable. Considering the massive suppression practised by the assessee, we do not think the view taken by the Tribunal is in any way unreasonable because the assessee made more unaccounted sales than accounted sales. So far as the addition of turnover under Section 5A is concerned, there cannot be 3 any dispute that without raw materials products cannot be manufactured and therefore if assessee practised unaccounted sales, necessarily he would have been engaged in unaccounted purchases of raw materials as well. Considering these facts, we are of the view that Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition. We also do not think any of the questions raised by the petitioner is a question of law justifying interference. We therefore dismiss the Revision Petition. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C.K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 4