IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 62 of 2007() ------------------------ TA.63/2005 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------- GRIHALAKSHMI MUSIC, K.T.C. BUILDING, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.SHAMSUDEEN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON 06/02/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.62 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The question arising in the tax revision filed by the petitioner is whether petitioner is liable to pay tax on the recorded CDs and audio cassettes sold by them under the brand name under Section 5(2) of the KGST Act. The Tribunal found that petitioner is using a logo and brand name and therefore, petitioner is liable to pay tax for sale of the item under the brand name under Section 5(2) of the KGST Act. It is against this order, revision is filed by the petitioner. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. During hearing, counsel for the petitioner produced certain bills pertaining to purchase of recorded CDs and audio cassettes by the petitioner from other dealers which are recording studios in the State. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that copy right is with the petitioner and the studios supplying the recorded cassettes are 2 recording the cassettes and CDs based on the master CDs and cassettes supplied by the petitioner. Petitioner admittedly has a logo and is using the name Grihalakshmi Music. Even though counsel contended that Grihalakshmi Music is nothing but name of the shop, we do not think there is any bar against petitioner developing brand name with the shop's name or dealer's name. So long as recording is done for the petitioner which is the job work undertaken by studios, petitioner is a first seller of the branded product. We do not find any error with the finding of the Tribunal that the product sold is under brand name and so much so, the revision is dismissed. However, dismissal of revision will not stand in the way of petitioner claiming rebate of tax paid by suppliers under Rule 32(13B) of the KGST Rules. However, if any such claim is made, it is for the officer to verify actual payment of tax on petitioner's purchases from suppliers. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms