VARKEY PATHRISE AND SONS v. STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.V.ASOKAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2006 / 31ST SRAVANA 1928 ST.Rev..No. 247 of 2003() ------------------------------- TA.350/2002 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- VARKEY PATHRISE AND SONS, CONTRACTORS, PALAL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KOCHI 682 030 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.V.ASOKAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMIS ON 22/08/2006, THE COURT THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.M.JOSEPH, JJ......................................................................S.T.R.V. No.247 of 2003.....................................................................Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2006.JUDGMENTRamachandran Nair, J.Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader.
Theissue raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing exemption ontransportation charges claimed by the petitioner for transport of river sand, rubbleetc., to the construction site for execution of work. The petitioners are PWDcontractors engaged in execution of work in terms of tender conditions. It is seenthat the cost of river sand and rubble being exempted was allowed as deductionalong with cost of departmentally supplied materials. However, petitioner's case isthat the vehicles used for transport of materials are owned by the petitioner and somuch so, the petitioner has accounted transportation cost separately along withcost of materials. Petitioner's case is transportation cost being cost of the materialshould be allowed as deduction. Even though the Tribunal has not discussed thedetails, we find from the order of the Assessing Officer that claims are not in tunewith the tender conditions and we also find in the statement that almost equalamount of value of goods is claimed towards transportation cost.
We do not findany provision in Section 5(c) of the KGST Act providing for deduction oftransportation cost while determining taxable turnover on works contract. We, 2therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in revision. The Sales Tax Revision Case is accordingly dismissed.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudgeK.M.JOSEPHJudgepms 3C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.M.JOSEH, JJ.-----------------------------------------T.R.C. No. of 200-------------------------------JUDGMENTDated
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.