IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 96 of 2009() ------------------------ TA.111/2007 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ WYNAD RESINS, PUNNAPALA.P.O, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, ALONG WITH STRV NO.138 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T.Rev. Nos.96 & 138 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the Government Pleader. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in directing adjustment of sales tax paid by the respondent-assessee under the KGST Act against tax liability determined under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessments relate to the years 1999-2000 and 2001-2002. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee is not liable to pay tax under the KGST Act by virtue of exemption available under Notification issued by the Government. However, he forfeited the sales tax and surcharge paid by the assessee for these two years. On appeal, the Tribunal clearly found that the forfeited tax is not collected tax and it is tax payable on rubber latex at the point of last purchase in the State. In the first place, Section 46A(1) provides for forfeiture of tax only in respect of collected tax. In this case assessee paid the tax under the local Act by mistake and the said tax being tax payable at the purchase 2 point of the raw material purchased, is not collected tax. There is nothing wrong in the Tribunal directing adjustment of remitted tax towards CST found due from the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly vacated the order forfeiting the tax paid by the assessee and directed adjustment of the same towards CST dues. We find no merit in the revisions filed by the department and therefore, both the revision cases are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms