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 TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 159 of 2007() ------------------------- TA.113/2002 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- NEELAKANTA RAJU, IMFL DEALER, MANAKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEKCHAND THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL RAHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 159 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. Petitioner, a dealer in Indian made Foreign Liquor admittedly, did not account even purchases from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. Therefore accounts were rejected and assessment was made with an estimated addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in addition of the conceded unaccounted purchase of over Rs. 15 lakhs added to the turnover. In fact failure to maintain proper books of accounts is admitted by the petitioner and compounding fee was also paid to avoid prosecution and penalty. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that besides conceding the unaccounted purchases from the Beverage Corporation, petitioner has not conceded any other omission in the accounts and so much so there is scope for separate addition. We do not think this argument is tenable because once 2 accounts are rejected for omission of accounting purchases, the option left to the officer is only to make estimation of turnover. Considering the fact that liquor is a controlled commodity the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was reduced by the Tribunal to Rs. 1 lakh. Since addition is justified in principle, the balance is only on the quantum involved. We do not think there is any justification for this Court to interfere on the quantum of addition. We therefore dismiss the Tax Revision. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C.K. ABDUL RAHIM) Judge. kk 3