IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 11724 of 2003(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. PALAKKAD STEELS (P) LTD., INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHYAMLAL TANTIA. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT-III), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.20124/2003 IN OP NO.11724/2003 DISMISSED: 8.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT.22.6.2002. P2: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DT.6.3.2003. P3: TRUE COPY OF STAY ORDER DT.17.3.2003 PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, PALAKKAD. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.14.11.2000 ISSUED BY R3. P5: .DO. DT.3.5.2001 PASSED BY R2. P6: .DO. DT.14.5.2002 .DO. R1. P7: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.11.6.2001 FILED BY PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.11724 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order whereunder the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has confirmed penalty levied on the petitioner for the year 1997-98 for non-payment of purchase tax for steel ingots purchased from exempted units. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that assessment of purchase tax challenged in appeal was cancelled by the Tribunal vide order in T.A. No.147/2003 dated 21.4.2003. It is seen that the Tribunal has relied on decision of the Supreme Court in 140 STC 1. There is nothing to indicate in the Tribunal's order that petitioner has paid tax on the products manufactured by it. Even though the item purchased is declared goods, State is entitled to levy tax at one point. It is not known whether tax is paid on the product at sale point by the petitioner or otherwise, petitioner will be liable to pay tax under Section 5A on purchases. In any case since demand of purchase tax is cancelled in assessment appeal by the Tribunal, I set aside Ext.P6 order with direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the matter after calling for records and after verifying whether Tribunal's order has become final. Petitioner should be 2 heard before passing adverse orders against it. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms