Remanded

M/S.Shah Cashew Company v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2009ST.Rev./157/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the disallowance of stock transfer costs due to non-compliance with F form requirements. Regarding interstate sales tax concessions, the Court allowed one month to produce transport documents with check post seals; failure to do so results in confirming lower authorities' orders denying the concession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one month to produce documents showing interstate movement with check-post seals; failure will confirm lower authorities' orders.

M/S.Shah Cashew Company Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930

¶3

ST.Rev..No. 157 of 2008() ---------------------------------TA.289/2005 of KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ....................

¶4

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE

¶5

-------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

M/S. SHAH CASHEW COMPANY, PALLICKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHIHAN SHAH

¶7

BY ADV. MR.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON MR.HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:---------------------------------------------------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN

¶11

THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Rs/

¶13

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶14

S.T.Rev. NO: 157 OF 2008

¶15

Dated this the 5^th March, 2009.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶18

Of the two questions raised in the revision filed by the assessee the first question pertains to disallowance of stock transfer of Rs.1,26,125/- to consignment agent for sale under consignment agency agreement. Admittedly petitioner has not produced F form or complied with Rule 5A of the CST (Kerala) Rules. Consequently we reject this contention raised by the petitioner.

¶19

Another issue pertains to disallowance of concessional rate at 4% on turnover of Rs.24,92,500/- which pertains to interstate sales not covered by C forms. Concession rate is claimed under notification 1731/1993 by which interstate sale is entitled to concessional rate. However, it is seen that concessional claimed is disallowed for the reason that there is no proof of interstate movement of goods from Kerala to outside State. In principle we find no ground to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that documents were intially seized by the CBI and thereafter returned. According to him

¶20

S.T.Rev.NoL 157/2008

¶21

¶22

these documents are produced before the first appellate authority and though he verified the same; he did not grant exemption. Govt. Pleader contended that there is nothing on record to show that documents produced are sufficient to prove interstate movement. Goods transported through check post will be covered by transport documents with check post seals. Therefore, if petitioner produces either the transport copy of the delivery note or sale bill with check post seals showing movement of goods from this State to outside Kerala before the assessing officer, there will be a direction to the assessing officer to grant concessional rate on such quantity of cashew kernel covered by such documents. The petitioner is granted one month's time from receipt of copy of this judgment to produce documents failing which orders of the Tribunal will stand confirmed.

¶23

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶24

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶25

¶26

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

¶27

M.F.A.NO:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Dated:

M/S.Shah Cashew Company v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Shah Cashew Company v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichur Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Comm. of Income Tax, Trivandrum Vs S. Sandeep Kumar,Pachayil Ind., Kadakkal

Indal Photo Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Commissioner of Central Excise Service T Vs M/S.v.Star Creations

M/S. Solar Cashew Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Swiss Time House Vs State of Kerala