Kerala High Court
G. Soman vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
ST.REV. NO. 1 OF 2024
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
G. SOMAN
AGED 62 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, M/S. HOTEL AKASH AND ROHINI PULAMON,
KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DT, PIN - 691531
BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON
MEERA V.MENON
R.SREEJITH
K.KRISHNA
PARVATHY MENON
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT.
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP- V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN.
THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
S.T.Rev.No.1/2024
-:2:-
ORDER
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
The revision petitioner is a dealer in beer and wine and an
assessee under the KGST Act. The annual returns submitted by
the revision petitioner for the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 were
not accepted by the assessing authority on the ground that the
gross profit conceded for the sale of beer and wine was low. The
assessing authority completed the assessment for the
aforementioned period on that basis, adopting higher gross profit
and passing Annexure A assessment order. The revision petitioner
challenged Annexure A order unsuccessfully before the First
Appellate Authority. The further appeal preferred by the revision
petitioner before the Tribunal was also dismissed. The revision
petitioner has preferred the revision, challenging the orders of
the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal raising the following
questions of law:
"A) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, has not the appellate
tribunal erred in finding that the no supporting
evidence/Sale bills is produced in support of the
conceded gross profit in the sale of beer & wine?
B) Ought not the learned tribunal have ordered
re-verification of the sales bills/books of accounts
at the hands of the assessing authority?"
2. We have heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
The revision petitioner challenged the orders of the
assessing authority, the appellate authority, and the Tribunal on
the ground that there was no valid reason to interfere with the
gross profit conceded by him. According to him, the gross profit
earned from his business was only 31% for 2014-15 and 35.45%
for 2015-16 and can never be 60% as estimated by the assessing
authority. However, the petitioner was not able to produce any
sale bill for the aforementioned period before the assessing
authority to substantiate his plea that the gross profit earned by
him was only 31%. In the absence of production of sale bills, the
assessing authority was absolutely justified in interfering with the
self-assessed return with the assessment based on best
judgment. The petitioner did not even have a case that he was in
possession of sale bills. The first appellate authority and the
Tribunal found that the percentage of gross profit fixed @60%
appears to be quite reasonable and within limits, even for a
dealer who opted for compounding. We find no reason to
interfere with the said findings of the authorities below. The sales
tax revision is accordingly dismissed, answering the questions of
law raised against the revision petitioner and in favour of the
revenue.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR
2014-15 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKKARA DTD. 23-05-
Annexure B COPY OF ORDER OF JOINT COMMISSIONER
(APPEALS), KOLLAM DTD. 06-04-2021
Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN TA (ST) NO.
20-2021 OF THE JKERALA GENERAL SALES TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DTD. 13-09-2023
