Kerala High Court
Mcdowell And Company Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2016
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937
ST.Rev..No. 105 of 2008
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 482/2000 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN T.A.:
-----------------------------------
MCDOWELL AND COMPANY LTD., NOW KNOWN AS
UNITED SPIRITS LTD., VARANAD, CHERTHALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-ACCOUNTS
MR.J.ANANTHARAMAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR
SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN T.A.:
----------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
S.T.Revision.No.105 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2016
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader for the Department of Commercial Taxes.
2.The only issue that is raised for consideration in this revision at the time of hearing relates to the levy of tax on water and steam shared with the sister company in the same premises. While the revision petitioner pleaded before the authorities below, including the tribunal, that there was no sale and the revision petitioner had spent the expenses for processing of water and generation of steam which were shared by both the companies, the fact of the matter remains that the revision petitioner did not produce any evidence to prove that the S.T.Revision.No.105 of 2008 2 income under the heads of 'cost price of water' and 'cost price of steam' is not otherwise than by way of deemed sales as noted by the assessing authority. This finding on facts is rendered by the appellate tribunal on the basis of the materials on record. The tribunal also noted that the assessee's earlier contention before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that the item, being industrial raw material, is eligible for concessional rate of tax on the strength of Form 18 declaration was not raised before the tribunal. We do not see any legal infirmity or error in the decision of the tribunal. The impugned decision is not vitiated warranting interference through this revision under Section 41 of the KGST Act.
In the result, this revision is dismissed.
sd/-
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj22/2