9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent: By Advs. Mini G., A. Kumar (Sr.) (K/529/1992), P.J. Anilkumar (K/265/1988), P.S. Sree Prasad (K/1181/2009), Balasubramaniam. ORDER DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. This O.T. Revision preferred by the State impugns the order dated 7.6.2023 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Thiruvananthapuram in TA(VAT) No.149 of 2020. 2. The brief facts necessary fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority. Further, suspecting the genuineness of the transactions, a security deposit was insisted and proceedings under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act were initiated against the respondent/assessee which culminated in the imposition of a penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,32,040/- as per order dated 28.7.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the intelligence officer, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the date of transport? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in relying the judgment of this Honourable Court in M/s Arafa Gold Vs. Assistant Commissioner and others in WP(C) No. 3593/2017 dated 02.08.2017 as facts of the said case are entirely different with the facts of the case considered by the Tribunal? c) Whether on the facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It was not in dispute that the jewellery in his possession was being taken for the sole purpose of hallmarking and thereafter returning to the store of the respondent/assessee. The revenue also did not have a case that the goods were meant for sale and that therefore there was a possible evasion of tax. It is also significant that the respondent/assessee was paying tax on compounded basis, base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the light of the facts noticed above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the appellate tribunal, more so when the revenue has not brought to our notice any fact that would require us to do so. The O.T. Revision therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed by answering the questions of law raised against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
