IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 37 of 2010() ------------------------ (T.A. NO. 44 OF 2009 DATED 14.8.2009 OF KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.) REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT/APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.THERMAX ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD., PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE CONTROLLER, HARISH N.TIKOTKAR. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, ALONG WITH STRV 38 & 39 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. & C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. Nos. 37, 38 & 39 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. All these Sales Tax Revisions arise from the common order in T.A.Nos. 44,45 and 46 of 2009 passed by the Kerala Agrl. Income tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03. Petitioner was awarded contract by BHEL for setting up of generator. Though the work is locally executed which attracts sales tax, petitioner did not file any return or remit any tax for the reason that entire work was given on sub-contract and the sub- contractor was registered under the KGST Act and they remitted the ; tax. Assessment in the case of the petitioner was completed on best judgment basis because records and accounts were not produced. The position continued in appeals and the Tribunal therefore confirmed the assessments against which these revisions are now filed. 2. Before us, senior counsel Dr. Mohammedkutty submitted that what the petitioner seeks is an opportunity to produce full records and 2 accounts which are now available. Government Pleader submitted that there can be no objection against reconsideration of petitioner's accounts and records and other materials produced by the petitioner. In the circumstances, we give one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce books of accounts and entire records pertaining to award and execution of work including collection and remittance of tax by the sub contractor and also the bills raised by the petitioner on the Awarder including recovery of tax. The assessing officer is directed to call for records from BHEL, the awarder and also records of assessment of the sub-contractor as well to consider the accounts and records produced by the petitioner and to make assessment afresh after considering the materials produced by the petitioner and others and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Petitioner is granted one month's time from today to produce entire records before the assessing officer for him to make fresh assessments after calling for details as stated above. If records are produced as above, then revisions will stand allowed vacating the orders of the Tribunal with direction to the assessing officer to complete fresh assessments within two months 3 from the date of receipt of records. On the other hand, if records are not produced within one month as stated above, revisions will stand dismissed. (P.R. RAMAN) Ag. Chief Justice (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 4