Antony Dominic, J. 1. This revision is filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in TA(VAT).65/11, filed by the respondent herein.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Assessment was completed for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 based on the power consumption. The assessment was upheld by the first appellate authority in an appeal filed by the assessee. Assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal in the appeal mentioned above and the Tribunal upheld the method and assessment carried out against the assessee. The Tribunal also considered that a deduction of 30% was claimed by the assessee, which was originally allowed only to the extent of 10% and it allowed 20% deduction. Thereafter, the OTRV.171/14 2 price per load adopted by the Intelligence Officer was reduced by the Tribunal. The orders show that the Intelligence Officer has adopted `4,000/- and `4,200/- as the price for the assessment years 2007- 08 and 2008-09 respectively. This was reduced by the Tribunal to `2,400/- and `2,800/- respectively, following the price adopted by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.VI, Ernakulam in the case of M/s.Sheeja Metal Industries, Mekkalady, another assessee.
4. In so far as the reduction of price adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the revision petitioner points out that in TA.Nos.49/08 and 50/08, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal had adopted `4,200/- per lorry load. Obviously, the price could not have come down for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the Tribunal, therefore, should not have adopted a price which is less than what it had adopted in TA.Nos.49/08 and 50/08 mentioned above, even if it is based on the price adopted by the Intelligence Officer. This, OTRV.171/14 3 therefore, means that the price adopted by the Intelligence Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority in the case of the respondent at the rate of `4,000/- and `4,200/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 was a reasonable estimation and did not call for interference.
We, therefore, dispose of this revision directing the assessing authority to modify the assessment order in the light of the Tribunal's order.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.