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 25TH AUGUST, 2008 / 3RD BHADRA, 1930 ST.Rev.No. 2 of 2008 (TA.174/2005 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------------- M/S. WAGHJI LAKSHMIDAS & COMPANY, SOUTH BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. VIJAY MULJI THAKKAR, MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No. 2 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair,J: Heard Senior Counsel Sri.K.B.Mohammedkutty appearing for the revision petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the assessing officer has taken endorsement value of spices purchased for the purpose of taxation. On going through the Tribunal's Order, we do not think, the Tribunal has decided this issue. We have therefore gone through the assessment order and we find that even though the officer proposed to take endorsement value, which is the value declared in the delivery note issued by the Department for transporting records, the assessing officer has in fact adopted the turnover from the books of accounts and the addition made is only in the form of disallowance of expenditure accounted for the purchase of goods. Since accounts are seen accepted and addition is in the form of S.T.Rev.NO. 2 of 2008 :-2-: disallowance, for want of details furnished by the revision petitioner, we do not find any grievance for the revision petitioner, even though the taxable turnover adopted by the assessing officer is different. There was of course an addition to the taxable turnover returned by the assessee. However, we do not find, the Tribunal had decided any question of law and consequently, no question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ S.T.Rev.NO. 2 of 2008 :-3-: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A.NO. 81 OF 2000 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T S.T.Rev.NO. 2 of 2008 :-4-: DATED:17-6-2008