IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 86 of 2010() ------------------------ TA.334/2009 of DY.CMRR.KERALA AGRL.IT & STAT,EKM. .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ KAMASU EXPORTS, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A.V.ABDUL MANAF. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 86 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the review petitioner and Government Pleader. The dispute raised is against assessment of tax on purchase turnover under Section 5A of the Act and also against assessment of drawback. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders impugned we find force in the contention of counsel for the petitioner that drawback is not turnover assessable under the KGST Act because it is refund of excise duty paid on the goods exported. Purchases for export are entitled to exemption and in fact levy under Section 5A is limited to purchases from unregistered dealers. However, drawback claimed represents excise duty paid on goods purchased from registered dealers, which were exported. There is no assessment of purchase turnover from registered dealers who would have claimed exemption based on Form 18A issued by the petitioner. So much so there is no case for assessment of drawback received as turnover. We therefore allow the 2 revision partly by reversing the order of the Tribunal and that of the lower authorities and direct the assessing officer to exclude Rs. 3,19,233/- from the taxable turnover. 2. So far as assessee's challenge against assessment under Section 5A on purchases from unregistered dealers is concerned, inspite of one round of remand, assessee could not prove that suppliers had taxable turnover entitling the assessee for exemption. Since details of purchases were not furnished assessment under Section 5A is tenable, particularly when the assessee has not only exports but has local sales as well. We therefore decline to interfere with the Tribunal's order on this issue. Revision stands allowed to the limited extent stated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk