Ot.rev/59/2010 Of Neyas Mohammed v. The Agri.income Tax & Commercial Tax

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 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 OT.Rev.No. 59 of 2010() ----------------------- TA(VAT).347/2009 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- NEYAS MOHAMMED PROPRIETOR,NAZ EXPORTS THONDANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRI.INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEOUTY COMMISSIONER, (APPEALS),KOLLAM. 3. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH OTRV NO. 60 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.T. Rev. (VAT) No. 59 & 60 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents. Revisions are filed against penaltylevied on the petitioner under Section 67 of the Kerala Value AddedTax Act for evasion of tax. After hearing both sides and after goingthrough the Tribunal's order, we find that petitioner is a registereddealer under the KVAT Act and he had imported certain goods whichare used for furnishing the building taken by him on lease from hisfather. The finding of the Tribunal is that goods purchased were notaccounted and only department found out the transactions. The clearfinding of the Tribunal is that building is owned by the petitioner'sfather and he is on monthly rent doing business therein. Sincefurnishing is done by the owner of the building, necessarily petitionertransferred the imported items to his father or atleast there is a deemedtransfer. Therefore we cannot find fault with the finding of the OT Rev. 59 & 60/2010 Tribunal since petitioner was a dealer and goods were imported in thecourse of business and sold to his father, no matter it was for furnishingbuilding given on rent by petitioner's father to him, still tax is payableon such sales. We notice that the Tribunal has reduced the penalty by50% that is from double the amount to the equal amount of tax. Theposition is the same in so far as assessment is concerned. We do notfind any merit in the STRev. against assessment as well. Consequentlyboth the Revisions are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk