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 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 336 of 2005() ------------------------- TA.639/2001 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH-I,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE : --------------------------------------------------- M/S.POOMKUDY AUTO SERVICES(P) LTD., PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER(TAXES), SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T. Rev No. 336 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader(Taxes), appearing for the respondent. The question raised pertains to the addition made in the assessment, which is sustained by the Tribunal. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders of the lower authorities, including the impugned order of the Tribunal, we notice that the petitioner was found engaged in accounting local sales as sales made from the Branch at Mahi which is a part of the Union Territory of Pondichery. Since physical stock was not moved to Mahi and what was done was only accounting of sales, in that place the Department rightly assessed the turnover as local sales. Tribunal has sustained the addition of only actual turnover of omitted local sales which were bogus sales accounted in Mahi. So far as the addition to the turnover is concerned, we notice that besides the actual omission, on account of this disallowance of Mahi transactions, the other additions sustained are for probable omission which is only Rs.3,69,410/-. STRV : 336/05 -:2:- Since the assessee was found to be engaged in tax evasion, there is no justification to accept the account as such. Therefore, addition of assessment has to be made to the declared turnover. Considering the total turnover, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal sustaining the addition. Consequently, the Sales Tax Revision is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb