K MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not find any merit in this tax revision case. The declaration in form 25 which the petitioner produced before the assessing authority to claim exemption in respect of the sale alleged to have been effected to assessable dealers within the State were found to be defective. Petitioner was apprised of the defects in the declarations by the pre-assessment notice. One of the defects noted was that the sales were alleged to have been effected to various parties, but the declarations were from other persons. Petitioner did not choose to rectify the defects or to establish by other evidence that the sales had actually been effected to other assessable dealers within the State. The assessing authority therefore rejected the form 25 declarations and assessed the petitioner on the turnover in question. The order of assessment is dated October 5, 1984. The matter was taken up in appeal without success, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the appeal on April 25, 1985. The matter was taken up in second appeal to the Tribunal, who by the order, annexure D, dated March 10, 1993 dismissed the appeal refusing to accept the form 25 declarations produced by the petitioner.

(2.) DESPITE the assessing authority having pointed out long back that the form 25 declarations were defective and were not acceptable, no attempt was made by the petitioner to rectify the defects in the form 25 declarations or to adduce other evidence in the case to show that the sales have actually been effected to other assessable dealers within the State. He did not choose to avail of any opportunity to produce any document before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or even before the Tribunal though the matter was pending for a long number of years after the assessment proceedings started in the year 1982-83. The case now put forward about a commission agency and the declarations having been furnished by the agent has never been put forward before the lower authorities. The grounds of appeal, annexure B, filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is totally silent on such a contention. We do not therefore find any reason to entertain this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .