IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 150 of 2007() ------------------------- TA.246/2006 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT. -------------------------------------------------- M/S.KALLIYATH SANITATIONS, EAST BAZAR, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.ANWER SADATH. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.1076 OF 2007 IN S.T. REVISION NO.150 OF 2007. DISMISSED 15.12.2008 Sd/-(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- S.T.REVISION NO.150 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The revision arises from the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad disposing of the Department appeal for the assessment years 2002-2003. We have heard counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. Even though we agree with the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has not given reasons for the order allowing the Department appeal, we do not think it is a fit case for interference for the following reasons: i. The assessee was engaged in trading in construction materials like tiles, hardwares etc. ii. Even though the total turnover is 3.5 crores, the taxable turnover is almost half of the total turnover. iii.The assessee has not maintained any stock register. Besides that, even though the assesee maintained a godown and show room , he has not accounted for any freight or coolie charges in the trading account. iv.Rate of gross profit conceded by the assessee for taxable sales is much below the rate of gross profit for non taxable sales. S.T.REV.NO.150/2007 2 Even though counsel for the revision petitioner controverted the factual findings in the assessment, we do not think any such argument can be entertained in the revision petition. In many cases, we notice that rate of profit accounted by dealers in non taxable goods is much higher than the rate of profit in taxable goods which is the case here also. This is obviously to reduce tax incidence. The total addition is only around 4% of the turnover and the rate of gross profit refixed for taxable goods is only 12%. The First Appellate Authority has not substantiated his findings with reasons. The Tribunal, therefore, reversed the order of the First Appellate Authority and confirmed the assessment. We do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration in the order of the Tribunal. The Tax Revision is accordingly dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE (HARUN-UL-RASHID) JUDGE sp/ S.T.REV.NO.150/2007 3 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. S.T.REVISION NO.50/2007 JUDGMENT 15th December, 2008 S.T.REV.NO.150/2007 4