EUREKA FORBES LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P32 order, in an appeal filed against the assessments for the years 1998 -99 to 2004 -05. The petitioner was directed to pay 1/3rd of the outstanding demand to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance. The petitioner contends that the issue with respect to the brand name has been answered by this Court in favour of the petitioner and that the assessment is only on assessment made under Section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for brevity "KGST Act"]. It is also submitted that the order does not disclose a prima facie consideration of the contentions of the petitioner.

(2.) ON a perusal of Exhibit P32, it cannot be said that the first appellate authority has not considered the contentions of the petitioner at all. It is to be noticed that, the assessments made are with respect to the years 1998 -99 to 2004 -05 and the contention of the learned counsel that the amounts demanded run to crores cannot be countenanced, since an alleged devise to escape tax under Section 5(2) was attempted to be plugged by the Department. Even going by the order of the first appellate authority, it is seen that the branded goods sold by the assessee was purchased from subsidiary companies, which sales were declared as the first sales and the assessee's sale was declared as exempted for reason of it being second sales. This issue itself has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. M/s.Balsara Hygiene Products [2012 (3) KHC 931], wherein all the earlier decisions were considered. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with Exhibit P32 order.