IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 96 of 2007() ------------------------ TA.96/2003 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE. .................... ( REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------------------- K.PREMARAJAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.NINA BOARDS, ANDOOR, PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KREALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PRADEEP. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- S.T. REVISION NO. 96 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in this revision is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining the benefit of the notification SRO No.403/1994 as modified by SRO No.593/2004 and SRO No.689/2007 to the petitioner. The petitioner purchased soft wood for the manufacture of block boards and claimed exemption on the purchase turnover based on the notification referred to above. The condition for granting exemption from purchase tax is payment of sales tax on the product manufactured, namely block boards. However, it is seen that instead of selling the product locally and remitting sales tax thereon to avail exemption on purchase turnover of raw materials, the petitioner consigned the products outside the State for sale in those States. In fact the Tribunal found that the accounts did not disclose payment of any sales tax on any turnover of block boards. In the S.T.REVISION NO.96/2007 2 circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim that the condition of the notification is satisfied and so much so, exemption was rightly declined. Consequently, the Tax Revision is dismissed as devoid of merits. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE (HARUN-UL-RASHID) JUDGE sp/ S.T.REVISION NO.96/2007 3 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. S.T.REVISION NO.96/2007 O R D E R 17th December, 2008 S.T.REVISION NO.96/2007 4