HOTEL GREEN PARK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter arises under the kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. THE revision-petitioner is a partnership-firm in the name and style of Hotel Green Park at Kottayam, engaged in the business of sale of cooked food as well as foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1991-92, the petitioner filed a return declaring total and taxable turnover of Rs. 41,00,707. 05 and Rs. 22,23,164. 95 respectively. THE assessing authority did not accept the books of accounts and completed the assessment by fixing the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 47,18,850 and Rs. 26,91,460 respectively. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. THE said assessment was modified by reducing the quantum of addition made to the returned turnover. In second appeal by the petitioner the Appellate Tribunal further reduced the addition sustained by the first appellate authority. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of foreign liquor, he is only a second seller and therefore he is not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of second sale of foreign liquor. Learned counsel also submitted that the stock variation in foreign liquor found at the time of inspection conducted by the department on June 24, 1991 was only shortage of small quantities and that in view of the decision of this Court in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala (1991) KLJ (TC) 665, no tax can be levied in respect of such shortages. Learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal while considering the question of adequacy of the addition noted that neither the inspecting authority nor the assessing authority has any case that the petitioner is practising any unaccounted purchase and that after entering such a finding the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in sustaining any addition to the turnover of liquor. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in confirming the addition sustained by the first appellate authority.

(3.) WE will not be justified in interfering with the said finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal in revision under section 41 of the Act. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .