IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 280 of 2008() ------------------------- TA.205/2007 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPL. G.P. SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ------------------------ M/S. CROWN JEWELLERY, KODUNGALLOOR. ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI FOR R1 SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN FOR R1 SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.FRANKUR D.JAYAN FOR R1 SRI.SHANMUGHAM D.JAYAN FOR R1 THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, ALONG WITH STRV NO.289 OF 2008 & STRV NO.296 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. Nos.280, 289 & 296 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the connected revisions is whether deposit of gold by the shareholders of the respondent-company to the respondent and return of the same in species after three years involves purchase of old gold and sale of the same in ornament form. Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner cited decision of this court in similar cases pertaining to deposit of gold by partners to the firm which was carrying on business in gold jewellery. This court held that the deposit amounts to purchase. In this case the gold deposit is by the shareholder and the company being a separate legal entity, the transaction is obviously purchase as the item is taken as stock-in-trade, converted into ornaments and sold by the respondent. However, the issue has become academic because the department did not contest the assessment modified by the Tribunal for the year 1998-99 based on which compounding was granted for the three subsequent years, which 2 are the years for which these revisions are filed. Since the Tribunal's order for the year 1998-99 has become final, we dismiss the revisions but by observing that on merits, the Tribunal's order is not tenable. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms