IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 OT.Rev.No. 77 of 2010() ----------------------- TAVAT.22/2010 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER ------------------------------ P.P.MUKUNDAN,M/S.MALABAR MARBLES & MATERIALS,THIRUVANGOOR,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH O.T. REV. NO.78/2010 ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... O.T. Rev. Nos.77 & 78 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Revisions are filed against penalty orders issued under Section 47 (6) of the KVAT Act which stand modified by the Tribunal. After hearing both sides and after going through the Tribunal's order impugned, we notice that the department established unaccounted sale made by the petitioner at two places in Kerala, while the goods were in transit from Rajasthan to petitioner's place of business which is at Thiruvangoor, Kozhikode. While the case of the petitioner is that goods were accounted at the Check Post and entry tax is paid, Government Pleader submitted that but for detection th sale would not have been accounted by the petitioner. We notice that the bill accompanying the goods was not a VAT bill and further, the transport document did not contain TIN number of the petitioner. Therefore, we feel but for the case booked by the department, transaction would not have been accounted by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any 2 justification to interfere with the levy of penalty. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, we notice that the Tribunal has granted reduction. So much so, no interference is called for in the quantum levy as well. Revision cases are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms