IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2006 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 ST.Rev..No. 205 of 2006() ------------------------- TA.69/2005 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- N. KUNHIMARAKKAR, HASSAN GROUP OF COMPANIES, VALANCHERRY. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: REVENUE: --------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. V.V. ASOKAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2006, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 148 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.M. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T.R.V. NOS. 205 & 148 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2006 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. These two connected Tax Revision Cases arise from the common order of the Tribunal dismissing the sales tax appeals filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. We have heard senior counsel Dr. K.B. Mohamedkutty appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in LPG mainly purchasing it from Sakthi LPG Ltd., Trichur. Sales of LPG locally purchased is exempt at the hands of the petitioner as such sales are second sales. However, during the year 2000-01 the assessing officer cross-checked the purchases accounted by the petitioner with reference to the checkpost declarations and found that two consignments purchased by the petitioner from Sakthi LPG Ltd., Bangalore were not accounted and the total value of which was Rs. 1,13,189.10. Further, it was noticed that petitioner has not accounted purchases to cover payments through six Demand Drafts totalling Rs. 2,90,134/-. The Officer therefore made 2 proposal to estimate turnover by adding gross profit to the above amount treating the same as unaccounted inter-State purchases. The assessee put forward a case that transactions pertain to purchases from Sakthi LPG, Trichur and it is only to avoid unnecessary payment of freight charges, goods were delivered at Valanchery, that is on the way to Trichur where Sakthi LPG Ltd. has depot in Kerala. The assessee's explanation was considered with reference to documents produced and the data gathered by the department and the assessing officer found that the assessee has not substantiated the explanation. The findings are confirmed in first appeal and also by the Tribunal. It is against this finding Sales Tax Revision No. 148 of 2006 is filed. For the next year also the transaction is more or less the same and the unaccounted purchases from Sakthi LPG were found to be for Rs. 1,05,730/-. Here again the explanation was rejected by the Officer and confirmed by two levels of appeal, including the Tribunal, against whose order STRV No.205 of 2006 is filed. 3. On going through the Tribunal's order we have found that the Tribunal has considered meticulously the explanation offered by the petitioner with reference to documents produced and the corresponding 3 records of the local distributor of LPG, namely, Sakthi LPG, Trichur. The Tribunal found that though the local depot of Sakthi LPG also supported the petitioner, the values furnished by the petitioner as well as Sakthi LPG vary in respect of the same transactions. Therefore the Tribunal found that the explanation offered is unacceptable. We find the Tribunal's findings are based on materials, and we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Moreover under revisional jurisdiction, this Court has no authority to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by three authorities after considering the evidence produced by the petitioner and data gathered by the department. In the circumstances, the questions raised in both the Tax Revision Cases arise from pure findings of fact. Therefore we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and STRVs. are accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge (K.M. JOSEPH) kk Judge 4