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 MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 24 of 2009() ------------------------ TA.281/2004 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- E.NESAMONY, MATHA POULTRY FARM, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 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 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.24 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the revision filed by the revenue is whether Tribunal was right in granting exemption on sales turnover of chicken sold by respondent on the ground that respondent is a poultry farm. We have heard Special Government Pleader appearing for the State and counsel for the respondent. 2. Admittedly Notification entitles for exemption only for poultry farmers engaged in rearing of chicks in their farm. In this case respondent's accounts disclose that they have purchased chicken for Rs.17.97 lakhs and sold it for Rs.18.61 lakhs. The purchase account does not disclose purchase of feed or expenditure for electricity charges. Besides this, respondent has given statement before the officer that he is engaged in purchase and sale of live chicken. The purchasers from respondent were found to be bogus. The respondent has not adduced any evidence about the poultry sheds or farm 2 maintained by him. At our request, Special Government Pleader got the file for subsequent year also which shows that respondent is engaged in purchase and sale of live chicken for that year also. We do find any justification in the finding of the Tribunal that respondent was running a poultry farm because respondent was engaged in purchase and sale of live chicken on a small margin as a trader. We, therefore, allow the revision by reversing the order of the Tribunal and restore the assessment confirmed by the first appellate authority, but with the modification in turnover granted by the first appellate authority. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms