IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 182 of 2008() ------------------------- TA.340/2004 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------- M/S.SOCIAL ACTION FORUM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY FR.JOSE PALATTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.182 of 2008 & C.M. Appl. No.426 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though there is inordinate delay in filing the revision, we find that atleast one of the issues raised is covered by decision of this court which is not contested by the State in further appeal. Further, the petitioner filed rectification application and the delay in filing this revision case happened on account of the delay in passing orders in the rectification application. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the revision. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondent. The petitioner is running an industry manufacturing building materials with timber. According to the counsel, petitioner makes window frames, door frames, doors, windows etc., with the timber purchased partly against Form 18 issued under Section 5(3) of the KGST Act and partly at full rate of tax. The 2 grievance is against demand of tax from the petitioner for the timber purchased under Section 5(1)(v)(a) of the KGST Act. The contention of the petitioner is that they have no liability for payment of differential tax on the timber purchased other than against Form 18 because supplier charged full rate of tax. We are unable to accept this contention because petitioner is not a dealer in timber and is only a manufacturing concern and we see no reason why petitioner paid full rate of tax on the timber purchased at the point of first sale. Therefore, this contention is rejected. However, following the judgment in GOWRI GROUP V. SALES TAX OFFICER (2003(2) KLT SN 82) we allow the revision in part by vacating the order of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and direct the Assessing Officer to withdraw the demand of differential tax levied on the purchase turnover of timber covered by Form 18 issued by the petitioner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms