IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 OT.Rev.No. 59 of 2010() ----------------------- TA(VAT).347/2009 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- NEYAS MOHAMMED PROPRIETOR,NAZ EXPORTS THONDANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRI.INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEOUTY COMMISSIONER, (APPEALS),KOLLAM. 3. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH OTRV NO. 60 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.T. Rev. (VAT) No. 59 & 60 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Revisions are filed against penalty levied on the petitioner under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for evasion of tax. After hearing both sides and after going through the Tribunal's order, we find that petitioner is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and he had imported certain goods which are used for furnishing the building taken by him on lease from his father. The finding of the Tribunal is that goods purchased were not accounted and only department found out the transactions. The clear finding of the Tribunal is that building is owned by the petitioner's father and he is on monthly rent doing business therein. Since furnishing is done by the owner of the building, necessarily petitioner transferred the imported items to his father or atleast there is a deemed transfer. Therefore we cannot find fault with the finding of the OT Rev. 59 & 60/2010 2 Tribunal since petitioner was a dealer and goods were imported in the course of business and sold to his father, no matter it was for furnishing building given on rent by petitioner's father to him, still tax is payable on such sales. We notice that the Tribunal has reduced the penalty by 50% that is from double the amount to the equal amount of tax. The position is the same in so far as assessment is concerned. We do not find any merit in the STRev. against assessment as well. Consequently both the Revisions are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk OT Rev. 59 & 60/2010 3