IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 197 of 2010() ------------------------- TA.86/2009 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------- N.GOPINATHAN, M/S.MILAGE RUBBER INDUSTRIES, B-41, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UMAYANALLORE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.K.R.KURUP RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.197 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. Question raised is only on the addition made to the turnover for the reason that petitioner's accounts for the relevant year were found unacceptable and petitioner was engaged in suppression. Penalty levied and that was modified by lower authorities got confirmed through our judgment in S.T. Rev. No.198/2010 dated 27.9.2010. We find that the basis of rejection of books of accounts and estimation of turnover is based on the penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which is now confirmed vide our judgment stated above. In view of the finding of suppression confirmed by judgment of this court and the levy of penalty sustained by our judgment, petitioner cannot contend that the accounts should be accepted. Therefore, estimation is permissible and the remaining is only on the quantum of addition. We notice that besides the actual suppression, 2 equal amount was added in assessment and 60% for purchase tax assessment. However, in two levels petitioner got substantial reduction in addition and as of now the addition sustained by the Tribunal over the suppressed turnover is only around 25% of the actual addition originally made. Consequently we find no merit in the revision case. Revision is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms