Iron scrap classification and delivery-note penalty under Kerala VAT were confined to the statutory scheme and tax-based ceiling.

Iron scrap was treated as falling within the broader class of iron and steel for the Kerala Value Added Tax Act schedule and notification, rather than as a separate taxable commodity, because the statutory scheme did not create a distinct category for it. On penalty under section 47, non-production of the prescribed delivery note during transport attracted liability even though the transaction was recorded in the accounts; the absence of an express finding of evasion did not prevent penalty where evasion was inferable from the detention. The penalty was confined to twice the tax sought to be evaded on the invoice value, with excess recovery to be adjusted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether iron scrap could be treated as goods distinct from iron for the purpose of the Schedule and notification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. (ii) Whether penalty under section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be sustained when the transaction was reflected in the accounts and there was no express finding of evasion of tax, and whether the penalty had to be confined to twice the tax sought to be evaded.

Issue (i): Whether iron scrap could be treated as goods distinct from iron for the purpose of the Schedule and notification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The description of notified goods and the entries in the Third Schedule were read to include iron and steel within the relevant class of goods. Iron scrap was not specifically treated as a separate taxable commodity in the definition clause, and the market description could not by itself create a distinct category where the statutory scheme did not do so. On the schedule entry relied on, iron scrap fell within the common family of ferrous metals rather than being a separate commodity.

Conclusion: Iron scrap was not to be treated as a goods category distinct from iron for the purpose of the statutory classification.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be sustained when the transaction was reflected in the accounts and there was no express finding of evasion of tax, and whether the penalty had to be confined to twice the tax sought to be evaded.

Analysis: The absence of a delivery note accompanying the transport was treated as a statutory defect attracting penalty under section 47. Reflection of the transaction in the accounts did not cure the violation or take the case outside the penalty provision. Even though the order did not contain an express finding of evasion, such evasion was inferable from the detention of goods without the required delivery note. At the same time, the estimate of the goods value for security deposit was found unsustainable where the invoice value was available, and the penalty had to be limited to twice the tax element sought to be evaded.

Conclusion: Penalty was exigible under section 47, but it had to be restricted to twice the tax sought to be evaded on the invoice value, with adjustment of any excess recovery.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part by upholding the penalty liability while correcting the basis and quantum of computation in accordance with the statutory limit.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-production of the prescribed delivery note during transport can justify penalty under section 47 notwithstanding disclosure of the transaction in the accounts, and where tax evasion is inferable the penalty must be confined to the statutory ceiling linked to the tax sought to be evaded.

---