IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 OT.Rev.No. 34 of 2009() ----------------------- VATA.252/2008 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN T.A. --------------------------------------------------------- M/S.SASI ROAD FINISHERS & ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, NO.12, KALIYAPPA GOUNDER STREET, MATHIKONPALAYAM, DHARMAPURI, TAMILNADU-636 701. REP.BY ITS MANAGER S.MUNEER. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.T. REV. No.34 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent took notice on admission. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through orders of the lower authorities including that of the Tribunal, we find penalty is levied for the reason that at the time of transport of the goods the petitioner did not have registration under the KVAT Act. However, it is seen from records that petitioner maintained the registration earlier, which according to the petitioner was cancelled on account of closure of business in Kerala. In any case the transaction which led to levy of penalty under Section 47(6) is transport of capital goods which are machinery for road work from Kerala to outside State. Three other consignments were also detained and released after collecting security. 2 However, in all these three cases proposal for penalty was dropped finding that there was no attempt of evasion of tax. On the face of it, there is no sale of goods involved and it is only transfer of capital goods from one State to another by the dealer who has business in more than one State. Since transaction does not involve any sale, no penalty can be levied for attempted evasion of tax under Section 47(6) of the KVAT Act. We, therefore, allow the revision case by cancelling the order of the Tribunal sustaining the penalty. The Bank Guarantee should be released to the petitioner on production of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms