IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 160 of 2010() ------------------------- TA.231/2009 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------------------- MR.M.D.THOMAS, RED LAND TEA FACTORY, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE --------------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, PALA-686 875. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 018. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.160 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. Question raised pertains to disallowance of exemption claimed on stock transfer under Section 6A of the CST Act. The assessment happened to be made disallowing claim of exemption on part of the turnover for the reason that even F Forms were not produced. This continued in first round of appeal, but before the Tribunal petitioner could produce F Forms and, therefore, exemption could have been granted is the case of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contended that mere production of F Form will entitle the assessee for exemption on stock transfer. However, Government Pleader relied on earlier judgment of this court in Carborandum Industries case and several other decisions wherein this court held that unless physical movement of goods from one State to another is proved with documentary evidence, exemption under Section 6A cannot be 2 granted merely based on Forms of declaration produced by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision has to be upheld for the reason that they have demanded only evidence towards transport of goods from this State to outside State, the turnover of which was claimed as exempt by the petitioner. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submitted that since assessee expected relief based on F Forms produced, assessee could not produce all records such as the lorry receipt or Railway Receipt as the case may be, for transport of goods from Kerala to outside State. We find force in this contention. We, therefore, dispose of the revision by upholding in principle the finding of the Tribunal that petitioner is not entitled to exemption, if interstate transport of goods from Kerala to outside State is not established with document, but by giving an opportunity to the assessee to obtain and produce documents before the Tribunal which should be done within a period of three months from now. If petitioner produces documents and moves an application for review before the Tribunal, they will consider the claim on merits and if interstate movement is proved, exemption will be granted. It is open to the Tribunal to verify 3 the correctness and genuineness of the F Forms and it's correlation with the transport documents. The genuineness of documents, particularly availability of Boarder Check Post seals thereon also should be gone into by the Tribunal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms