S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The petitioner is a Government of Kerala Corporation engaged in marketing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The main activity of the petitioner is wholesale distribution of IMFL after buying it from manufacturers from outside Kerala. The assessment in question pertains to the year 1987-88. During that year, the petitioner had 4 warehouses and 14 retail shops in Kerala. The petitioner was granted FL-9 licence for the warehouses and FL-1 licence for the retail shops under the Abkari Act. The petitioner's sales from warehouses were only to dealers who were licensed vendors of IMFL under the Abkari Act and who were also registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. However, the sales from petitioner's retail shops were to consumers. As an FL-9 licence holder, the petitioner was forbidden from selling to customers from the warehouse and the petitioner could sell a IMFL to licensed dealers under the Abkari Act. The petitioner has stated that there is no dispute in sales tax so far as the sale from April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987 are concerned. However, for the sales from July 1, 1987 the dispute arose in the assessment between the petitioner and the department on the liability for first sales of liquor effected from warehouses to licensed dealers who were registered dealers under the KGST Act. According to the petitioner, the Rules did not provide any statutory form of declaration to establish first sales of IMFL made to registered dealers in Kerala which attract tax at 45 per cent. Therefore, the petitioner designed a declaration which contained all the details regarding the registered dealer to whom sales of IMFL were made by the petitioner. So far as IMFL purchased by the petitioner from manufacturers in Kerala who have collected and remitted sales tax on first sales to the petitioner, the petitioner's sales to registered dealers in Kerala are second sales which are not liable to tax. The petitioner's grievance is that inspite of the declarations obtained and produced from the purchasing dealers, the assessing authority disallowed exemption for alleged want of proof and the entire turnover of such second sales was assessed as the last sales by the petitioner at 15 per cent.
2. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondent, we are of the view that the matter should be examined again by the Tribunal. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, it is stated that the appellant could not produce copies of the sale bills for our perusal. In the absence of a prescribed form of declaration, the appellant could have prepared a list of sales to each registered dealer and produced before the assessing authority with copies of registration certificates. The petitioner states that he has filed a declaration form containing all particulars.
3. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for hearing de novo. The matter should be disposed of by the Tribunal untrammelled by the observations made earlier. The petitioner shall also be allowed to adduce fresh evidence.
T.R.C. is disposed of as above.