IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 43 of 2008() ------------------------ TA.275/2005 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MAHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- M/S. P.V.H. CASTINGS, KUTTIKATTOOR CALICUT. ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. --------------------------- S.T.Rev. No. 43 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the respondent is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 5A of Sales Tax Act on the consumption of raw material (silicon metal) which was purchased from exempted units. The Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court in Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner and Another (6 VST 541) allowed the claim. However in a similar case in S.T.Rev No.97 of 2003, we have held that when purchase of goods by industrial unit is from exempted units, they are liable to pay tax under Section 5A of the Act. IN R.P. No.993 of 2007 in S.T.Rev No.97 of 2003 this Court held that the decision of the Supreme Court applies only to declared goods. We are therefore in full agreement with the same view and therefore allow the S.T.Rev. case filed by the State in reversing the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessment confirmed in first appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE ) P.S.GOPINATHAN (JUDGE ) vps Crl. R.P..No. 2 Crl. R.P..No. 3