2025:KER:28832 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OT.REV NO. 16 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 IN TA(VAT) NO.215 OF 2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. GP RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S ART AND FRAME 4 X 4 BUILDING NO.X618P, MALIKAMPEEDIKA, ALANGAD, ALUVA - 683 511. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OT Rev.No.16/2021 2 2025:KER:28832 ORDER Dr.A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar , J. This OT revision is preferred by the State impugning the order dated 13.12.2019 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in T.A.(VAT)No.215 of 2017. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this OT Revision are as follows: By the order of the Tribunal that is impugned before us, the Tribunal had merely remanded the issue of penalty imposed on the assessee for fresh consideration by the original authority after verifying factual particulars with regard to whether or not the assessee had accounted the actual value of the goods in its books of accounts. The Tribunal had resorted to this course of action based on the production by the assesseee of a certificate dated 31.03.2015 issued by a Chartered Accountant, which certified that the import duty under the Customs Act, that was paid in respect of the goods that were being transported, was on the basis of the floor rate fixed by the Customs Department, and that the duty amount and the freight charges had been shown in the books of accounts and also in separate ledgers and further had been shown in the trading account OT Rev.No.16/2021 3 2025:KER:28832 also. The certificate also showed that the value of the goods was recorded in the invoice issued for the goods. Thus the direction of the Tribunal was to the Enquiry Officer to revisit the proposal for imposition of penalty, and impose penalty only if it was established that the appellant had not accounted the actual value in the books of accounts. 3. Inasmuch as the Tribunal has only remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a factual ascertainment as to whether or not the assesse had accounted the actual value of the consignment in his books of accounts, we do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law that can arise from the order of the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, we dismiss this OT Revision as not maintainable, since there is no substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this OT Revision. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE ACR OT Rev.No.16/2021 4 2025:KER:28832 APPENDIX OF OT.REV 16/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.OR- II/79/2014-15 DATED 30/06/2015 PASSED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN KVATA 2095/15 DATED 24/01/2017. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN TA (VAT) NO.215/2017 DATED 13/12/2019.