IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 OT.Rev.No. 41 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN TAVAT.485/2010 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT -------------------- P.KUNHALASSAN, KUNHIPPA CHICKEN STALL, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA. MR.SHAMSUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: OTREV.NO.41/2011 APPENDIX REVISION PETIITONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE - A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM, FOR THE MONTH OF (4/09 TO 10/09) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 09-10 DATED 23/12/2009. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 07/07/2010. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF COMMON TRIBUNAL ORDER IN T.A.V.A.T.NO.485/2010 FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 20/12/2010. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- O.T.Revn. No.41 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, who took notice on admission. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders of the Tribunal, we do not find any question of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal because in the absence of reliable accounts assessment is made by adding 5% Gross Profit to the purchase turnover. Considering the nature of business, i.e. purchase of live chicken from outside Kerala, brining the same to Kerala and sale of the same, we feel 5% Gross Profit is probably the minimum which needs to sustain the business. We therefore do not find any merit in the revision case. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Since learned Government Pleader submitted that the O.T.Revn.No.41/2011 -2- State has also filed a revision case against the very same orders of the Tribunal, the judgment rendered above will be subject to the judgment in the revision case filed by the State. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg