IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 OT.Rev.No. 12 of 2010() ----------------------- TAVAT.366/2009 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------- SHRI.K.RAVICHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, REMYA TRADERS, MUDAPPALLUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, ALONG WITH OTRV NOS.13 & 14 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.T. Rev. Nos.12, 13 & 14 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Revisions are filed against orders of the Tribunal confirming penalty levied for evasion of tax. The item involved is tamarind purchased and transported by the petitioner at below market value. In order to justify the low value declared in the documents, petitioner took a stand that the tamarind under transport was of inferior quality. However, the Sales Tax authorities detaining the goods inspected the commodity and satisfied themselves that the item transported was not of inferior quality. In adjudication and in appeal, the petitioner raised the same contention that the goods transported were of inferior quality. However, he could not establish as to how systematically only inferior quality is purchased and petitioner has not demolished the case of the departmental authorities who physically examined the goods while under transport and found that the goods transported were not of inferior quality. We do not find any substantial question of law arising O.T.REV. 12,13&14/2010 2 in the revisions because unless the petitioner proves that the item transported was of inferior quality, petitioner cannot substantiate that the value declared was real value. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no provision in the CST Act comparable to Section 19B for assessment at market value and has relied on decisions of this court in T.A.C.A. ASSOCIATION & OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS (1998) 71 STC 332 and in C.O.DEVASSY V. STATE OF KERALA (1991) 81 STC 2, we do not think the argument is tenable because if transport documents do not declare market value, then obviously it affects the genuineness of the transaction itself. Admittedly petitioner is engaged in trade and the goods transported is not for own consumption. Therefore, necessarily the presumption is that goods should have been purchased at market value and if low value is declared in the transport documents, the authorities are free to treat the purchase as having been made at market value and proceed accordingly. Since all the authorities concurrently found that the goods under transport were at below the market value which means purchase value declared was incorrect, we find no O.T.REV. 12,13&14/2010 3 justification to interfere with the penalty which itself stands reduced in first appeal. Consequently we uphold the orders of the Tribunal and dismiss these revision cases. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms