IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 12610 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. SAVEX COMPUTERS LTD., 39/1653 KALATHIPARAMBIL LANE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 016 REPRESENTED BY BIJUKUMAR V., MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRDCLE, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R1. P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R1. P3 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R1. P4 COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE R1. P5 COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE R1. P6 COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE R1. P7 COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY C.A. P8 COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY C.A. P9 COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY C.A. P10 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1. P11 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1. P12 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 12610 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner calls in question Exts.P10 to P12. They are orders by which the petitioner has been visited with penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner admittedly effected purchase after furnishing C-Forms. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has effected branch transfer of portion of the goods purchased and they have been resold. According to him, this is permissible. But, according to the impugned orders, the resale must take place within the State. The Officer has also not placed faith in the case of the petitioner that resale has in fact taken place at all. The discrepancy is noted in the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Apex court reported in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon and another Vs. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1981 (48) STC 239], Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax and another [1978 (41) WPC.12610/08 : 2 : STC 409] besides a Division Bench decision of this court reported in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue(Taxes), Ernakulam Vs. Lakshmichand Vasanji & Co. [1990 (79) STC 209] for the proposition that merely because resale is effected from outside the State, it does not invite the frown of the statute. The Officer has not found the certificate of the Chartered Accountant produced to prove resale as inspiring the confidence of the officer. It is a case where the petitioner can be relegated to approach the appellate authority. It is also contended that 1/4th of the amount has been paid. 2. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as follows. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within two weeks from today, the appeal will be taken up and decided within two months from the date of filing of the appeal. Till such time, the interim order will continue. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks