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 TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 144 of 2006 ------------------------- TA.60/2005 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S. SHARARA ROOTWEAR AGENCY, SHARARA BUNGLOW, KUYYALI ROAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT / REVENUE/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.No.144 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August 2008 ORDER H.L.DATTU, C.J. Assessee before us was running a footwear shop at Sharara Shopping Complex, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode. In this revision petition, we are concerned with the assessment year 1996-1997. It is stated in the petition that after the assessment year 1996-1997, the petitioner has closed down his business for various reasons. 2. For the aforesaid assessment year, petitioner had filed his annual returns conceding a total turn over of Rs.15,67,680.31, though the total turnover was Rs.37,36,210.00. It was his case that he had returned footwear worth Rs.16,22,194.80 to the selling dealers and secondly had stated since he had closed down the business in the year 1997 itself, the closing stock in a sum of Rs.6,26,555/- had not been sold during the assessment year 1996-1997. 3. The assessing authority had not accepted the returns filed by him. Accordingly, had issued pre-assessment notice inter alia pointing out in the notice, three defects in the returns filed. They are, the check post declarations were not properly reflected in the books of accounts; that, for returning the goods to his selling dealers, the assessee had not S.T.No.144 OF 2006 :: 2 :: produced any documentary evidence; and lastly when the assessee had the closing stock for the assessment year 1996-1997 in a sum of Rs.6,26,555/-, in the absence of proper explanation towards the closing stock, the same requires to be presumed to have been sold during the assessment year 1996-1997. 4. The assessee had filed his objection to the pre-assessment notice. 5. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, the assessing authority had confirmed the proposal made by him in the pre-assessment notice and the best judgment assessment order is passed. 6. Assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority in S.T.A.624/02. The said authority by its order dated 3-11-2004 had modified the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 7. Being dissatisfied with the orders so passed by the first appellate authority, the assessee had challenged the same in T.A.60/05 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 30-11-2005 has rejected the appeal and has confirmed the orders passed by the first appellate authority. That is how the assessee is before us in this revision petition. S.T.No.144 OF 2006 :: 3 :: 8. At the time of hearing of the petition, Sri.E.P.Govindan, learned counsel for the assessee, would submit that the assessee had produced sufficient documentary evidence before the assessing authority to demonstrate that the assessee had returned the taxable items of goods worth Rs.16,22,194.80 and the assessing authority, without taking into consideration that documentary evidence so produced, has made addition of the said items in the total turn over declared by the dealer and therefore the same is irregular, improper and bad. In so far as the other two omissions pointed out by the assessing authority, the learned counsel submits that the findings reached by the authorities under the Act does not require a second look and therefore, it may be taken as the petitioner has accepted the findings on those issues. 9. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by the assessee that he had effected purchase of the footwear in a sum of Rs.37,36,210/-. In the returns filed for the assessment year 1996-1997, the assessee had conceded a total turn over of Rs.15,67,680.31. The assessee's case before the assessing authority is that he had returned the goods worth about Rs.16,22,194.80 to the selling dealers. In support of this contention the assessee had produced xerox copies of the credit notes and photocopy of the lorry receipts. S.T.No.144 OF 2006 :: 4 :: 10. Whenever a dealer returns the goods to the selling dealer accompanied with the delivery notes, those delivery notes requires to be produced before the Check Post Officer in the last Check Post of the State. It is that document which requires to be produced by the assessee before the assessing authority at the time of scrutiny of the dcouments in support of the claim made in the returns. Secondly, what was produced before the assessing authority is the photostat copies of the credit notes and lorry receipts. When the selling dealer receives goods, which was sold by him to the purchasing dealer, he would issue a credit note which would be in the original form and it is that original credit note requires to be produced by the assessee before the assessing authority to claim exemption on the ground that the goods have been returned to the selling dealer. In the instant case, the assessee had not produced neither of these documents. The finding of the assessing authority has been accepted by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal also. There is concurrent findings of facts by the authorities and that concurrent findings of facts by no stretch of imagination can be characterised as a perverse finding and therefore, the interference with the impugned orders is not called for in the petition filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. S.T.No.144 OF 2006 :: 5 :: 11. In that view of the matter, while rejecting the revision petition, we answer the questions of law framed by the assessee against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes/DK.