IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 199 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN TA.616/2009 of DY.CMRR.KERALA AGRL.IT & STAT,EKM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT ------------------------------ M/S.THANKAM CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., PENTA CORNER, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR, MOLLY VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 200 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- S.T.Rev.Nos.199 & 200 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Challenge in these S.T.Revision cases is against penalty levied for two years i.e. 1997-98 & 1998-99, for the alleged misuse of Form 18 issued by the petitioner Company. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders, what we find is that the petitioner Company, which was formed to take over proprietorship business of the promoter, issued blank Form 18 to M/s.Indian Aluminium Company for the raw materials purchased by the promoter as a proprietorship concern. Admittedly, the business run by the promoter as proprietorship was taken over by the petitioner Company as a going concern. There is also no case that item purchased is not raw material used in manufacture of final products and so much so, if the promoter S.T.Rev.Nos.199 & 200/2010 -2- retained his registration and Form 18 issued to him, he could have issued Form 18 for the very same purchase. In other words, breach is only technical in the succeeding Company, which took over the business and issued Form 18 for the purchase made by the promoter while he was running the business as it's proprietor. Since the violation is only technical i.e. issue of blank Form 18 without involving any evasion of tax, we allow the S.T.Revision Cases in part by reducing the total penalty levied for both the years together to Rs.10,000/-. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg