IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / H ASHADHA 1933 ST.Rev..No. 28 of 2011() ------------------------ TA.39/2010 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------- M/S.KAP(INDIA) PROJECTS & CONTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, EAST FORT P.O.,THRISSUR, PIN-680005 BY ADVS. M/S. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON & MAHESH V.MENON THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 9.11.2009. ANNEXURE-B: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATED 16.3.2010. ANNEXURE-C: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.7.2010. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. knc/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = S.T. REV. No. 28 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision is filed by the State challenging the order of the Tribunal declaring that the Benz car sold by the respondent does not attract tax liability. We have heard the Government Pleader for the revision petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the records, what we notice is that tax is levied in Kerala merely because in the balance sheet the vehicle was seen as a business asset and was found to have been sold during the relevant year 2003-04. Counsel for respondent submitted that vehicle was registered in Goa and was used at the branch office at Karnataka. It was in fact taken to Coimbatore and sold there, is the case of the respondent. We do not find any material to indicate that vehicle was used on regular basis in Kerala and it was moved out of Kerala for selling in Coimbatore, in which case also assessment should have been considered S.T. REV. 28/2011 2 only under CST Act. In view of the factual finding of the lower authorities including the Tribunal, we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The S.T. Revision is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-