MAESTRO COOLING TOWERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad, in T. A. No. 539 of 1988, dated March 13, 1992, upsetting the order dated June 16, 1988 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad, cancelling the penalty proceedings before the Intelligence Officer, Palakkad, is the subject-matter of the present revision case under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

(2.) THE Intelligence Officer initiated proceedings under section 29a of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act in regard to interception of lorry No. KLZ-5991 at Sales Tax Check-post, Walayar, on January 20, 1987. THE lorry was transporting cooling tower materials and components from Madras to Cochin. THE check-post authorities were suspicious about the documents accompanying the transport. Notice and subsequent enquiries proceeded. THE present petitioners filed replies on the basis of the material, the trial authority (annexure A) imposed penalty in the nature of adjustment towards the security deposit of Rs. 45,540 realised from the petitioner on February 5, 1987, as per the cash receipt. THE authority reached the conclusion on the basis that the consignor is a supply contractor and therefore has to be a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and consequently, by reason of non-taking of registration even at the time of the order, there being an attempt as such at evasion of tax, there is no question of refund of security deposit collection.

(3.) ON facts the authority found that the Cochin Shipyard Ltd. , placed orders with the appellant for supply of materials which were despatched in the lorry accompanying the delivery note dated January 18, 1987. The value of goods as seen from the pro forma invoice dated January 15, 1987, would show at Rs. 1,15,000 and 10 per cent Central sales tax at Rs. 11,500 making a total at Rs. 1,26,500, making it crystal clear that the transaction was an inter-State sales in pursuance of the purchase order placed by the consignee. The authority also held that the position is clear from the sale bills that 10 per cent Central sales tax were charged and there is no material to show that this order could be said to be in pursuance of a supply contract in view of the position that the goods were supplied in pursuance of the purchase order issued by the consignee and therefore consequently the transaction would be in the course of inter-State sales coming under section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.