IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 OT.Rev.No. 17 of 2009() ----------------------- TA.347/2008 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------- M.AYSHA HAJUMMA, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.ALMANHAL ENTERPRISES, PARAPPALLI, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.T. Rev. No.17 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondent. After hearing both sides and on going through the impugned orders, particularly that of the Tribunal, we do not find any question of law arising for our decision because the revised assessment modified in first appeal and by the Tribunal is based on inspection carried out by the Audit Wing of the Department after power theft was detected in the premises of the petitioner's unit. We notice that substantial reduction is granted in first appeal based on appellate orders in the electricity theft case. Further, the Tribunal has reduced gross profit on the turnover added from 25% to 10%. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that power theft is not conceded by the petitioner and the matter is still contested before this court, we notice from the Tribunal's order that addition made on estimation basis is not only based on power theft detected, but based on independent evidence 2 of unaccounted transaction noticed during inspection. Besides this, after detection of power theft the average consumption has gone up from 3300 units per month to 5667 units. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the revision warranting interference by this court. Consequently revision is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms