IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 231 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.270/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT --------------------------------------------- N.V.SURENDRAN, PWD CONTRACTOR, SUDHILAYAM, P.O.CHAVASSERY, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.231 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised is with regard to rate of tax applicable for the turnover of works contract executed by the petitioner. It is seen from the Tribunal's order that out of the total work executed by the petitioner for Rs.32,24,920/- which was originally assessed as civil works, the officer found later that Rs.16,97,250/- represents consideration for other contracts executed by the petitioner. Consequently assessment was revised on this turnover under the compounding rate of 5% under Section 7(7A) of the KGST Act. The assessment was confirmed in two level appeals and therefore, the petitioner has filed this revision case before us. 2. We have heard counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondent. After hearing both sides and after going through the Tribunal's order, we find that the petitioner did not produce contract copies before the Tribunal to 2 establish that the work executed is civil construction work attracting tax under Section 7(7). Therefore, in the absence of any evidence the Tribunal rejected the contention. We do not find any fault with the Tribunal because it was for the petitioner to produce copies of entire contracts and bill copies for the Tribunal to verify whether the work executed and assessed under Section 7(7A) is civil construction work or not. Consequently revision is dismissed. However, we leave freedom to the petitioner to produce copies of contracts and file review petition before the Tribunal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms