IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 175 of 2009 ---------------------------------- TA.NO.32/2007 OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------------------- POLSONS DISTILLERY, MURINGOOR P.O, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, ALONG WITH ST. REV..NO.178 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.Nos. 175,178,180,181,182,184 185,186,189,216,217 and 218 of 2009 & W.P(C) No.12901 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair,J: The first question raised in these connected revision cases, filed by the Department, pertains to respondent's liability to pay interest under Section 23 (3A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for belated payment of turnover tax. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in S.T.Rev.No.89/09 and connected cases. Following the said judgment, we allow these S.T.Revisions, by vacating the order of the Tribunal and restore the interest levied by the officer and confirmed in the first appeal. However, if there is any mistake requiring correction, the respondent will point out to the officer to make correction so that interest levied is consistent with the S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-2-: judgment above referred. 2. The next issue raised by the Department is on the deduction granted towards the discount the respondent gave to Beverages Corporation. The Special Government Pleader submitted that the discount was disallowed in the original assessment for want of proof. The Kerala State Beverages Corporation, being a Government company, there should be no difficulty for the Department to obtain details of discount allowed to them by the respondent. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal on this issue and remand the matter to the officer. If the officer notices that the Beverages Corporation has made payment less the discount, the discount will be allowed. Disallowance, if any, should be made only after forwarding the details received from the Beverages Corporation by the officer to the assessee and after giving opportunity S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-3-: to the assessee to explain their case. The Sales Tax Revisions filed by the State are allowed to the extent indicated above. 3. In the Sales Tax Revisions filed by the respondent-the Distillery, the dispute raised is against the assessment of miscellaneous income. Sri.V.V.Asokan appearing for the distillery submitted that miscellaneous receipt does not constitute turnover because it is a consideration received for contract. However, we find from the Tribunal's order that the disallowance is made for want of evidence. We do not know, why petitioner could not furnish details such as contract with parties, bills raised for the work done and the documents towards transport of products, mainly i.e., inward transport of raw material and outward transport of product and copies of excise permits to prove the claim. We set aside the order of the S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-4-: Tribunal on this issue and give one more opportunity to the assessee to establish their case with evidence. The Sales Tax Revisions are disposed of as above. 4. The dispute raised in the writ petition is against the adjustment of payments first towards interest and balance towards tax in terms of Section 55C of the Act. So long as validity of Section 55C is not under challenge, it is only an adjustment of payment first towards the interest and balance towards tax. This issue is also seen considered in the judgment of the above referred S.T.Rev.No.89 of 2009. We therefore dispose of the writ petition directing the assessing officer to adjust payment based on the judgment in the above S.T.Revision. The assessee is given one month time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to furnish S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-5-: particulars for revision of assessment as stated above. sd/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ -true copy- P.S.to Judge. S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-6-: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- I.T.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------- ------ J U D G M E N T S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-7-: DATED: -9-2009 S.T.Rev. Nos.175 of 2009 and connect. cases :-8-: