IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 120 of 2010() ------------------------- TA.22/2009 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- M/S. ASSORTED FOOD PACKERS (P) LTD., KOLLAM, REP. BY G. SATHEESH NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON 16/02/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.120 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing exemption on stock transfer for the reason that dealers to whom petitioner consigned goods are bogus dealers and consequently transactions claimed are bogus. During hearing, before us Government Pleader produced a list of dealers in Delhi to whom the cashew traders in Kollam claimed to have consigned goods on stock transfer. It is seen that out of 40 dealers to whom the cashew traders consigned goods, there is only one dealer who is genuine and all others are bogus. Petitioner has a case that one more dealer arrayed as party No.25 in the list submitted by the Government Pleader, is also a genuine dealer. We do not think there is any justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal because petitioner themselves admit that they have consigned goods to atleast one bogus dealer. Since petitioner is engaged in bogus transactions, petitioner's case that another dealer is a genuine dealer 2 which is also against the case of the department, does not call for any consideration. Strangely the Government has condoned the fraud committed by all the dealers by giving them concessional rate of tax on the interstate sale of goods which were bogusly accounted as stock transfers. We do not think there is any need for us to consider the undesirable practice adopted by the Government for promoting tax fraud in the State. S.T. Revision case is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms