IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 88 of 2003 -------------------------------- TA.779/2000 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------------------------ SRI DHANYA CHEMICALS, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, NOW FUNCTIONING AT 33/790 A, THRIKOVIL ROAD CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: (REVENUE/RESPONDENT) ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON 02/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev.No.88 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July 2008 ORDER H.L.DATTU, C.J. This tax revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.779/2000 dated 30/12/2002. By the said order, the Tribunal has confirmed the orders passed by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.IV dated 13/07/1999. 2. Petitioner is a dealer in chemicals. He had purchased goods from one Arti Chemicals Industries, Ahamedabad, by issuing C Form declarations. These goods have been transported in a parcel lorry. On interception of the vehicle, it was noticed that for the purpose of carrying the goods in question, the driver in charge of the vehicle had only photostat copy of the purchase invoices and he did not produce either duplicate copy or any other document to support the genuineness of the transaction. After issuing notice and after collecting security deposit from the petitioner, the Intelligence Officer had released the goods and the lorry. Thereafter, he had transmitted the records to the enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the notice. Before the enquiry officer, petitioner could not produce any documents in support of his defence and, therefore, the enquiry officer had proceeded to S.T.Rev.No.88 OF 2003 :: 2 :: impose a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the ground that the petitioner has contravened certain provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 3. The assessee was before the First Appellate Authority. Before the said authority, the assessee's primary contention was that he had returned the goods to the seller at Ahamedabad. In support of that contention, he had produced lorry receipts. 4. The appellate authority had looked into those lorry receipts and has tentatively come to the conclusion that the assessee has not taken the delivery of the goods and he had returned the goods to the consignor of the goods and, therefore, there is no inter-State sales as such. The First Appellate Authority, as we have already stated, is tentatively of the opinion that if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee/petitioner, he would be in a position to sustain his defence with the help of necessary documents. Accordingly, he has remanded the matter to the Intelligence Officer to re- examine the entire facts in the light of the documents produced by the assessee and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The order passed by the First Appellate Authority is as under: “In the circumstances the penalty order passed by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.IV against the appellant is set aside and remanded for fresh disposal. The Intelligence Officer shall re-examine the entire facts in the light of the S.T.Rev.No.88 OF 2003 :: 3 :: evidences now produced by the appellant and pass appropriate orders. The appellant shall also be given an opportunity of being heard, before passing the revised order” 5. Even the open remand order that was passed by the First Appellate Authority was called in question by the Revenue before the Tribunal in T.A.No.779/00 and the Tribunal by its order dated 30/12/2002 has set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. While doing so, the Tribunal has not stated in its order why the orders of the First Appellate Authority could not be accepted by them. In one line, the Tribunal has observed that the orders passed by the Intelligence Officer is perfectly in order and therefore, the order passed by the first appellate authority requires to be set aside. In our view, the Tribunal while interfering with the orders passed by the first appellate authority is required to assign cogent reasons. An order which contains no reason is no order in the eye of law. Apart from this, in our view, a simple remand order could not have been interfered with, unless the revenue makes out exceptional and strong case against the remand order passed by the first appellate authority. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly we pass the following: S.T.Rev.No.88 OF 2003 :: 4 :: ORDER (i) The orders passed by the Tribunal is set aside. (ii) The order of the First Appellate Authority in remanding the matter to the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.4 for a fresh disposal in accordance with law is sustained. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes/dk