Turnover threshold for VAT registration failed where inspection showed continuous chicken trading and turnover above the statutory limit.

Continuous purchase, rearing and sale of chicken across multiple sheds, coupled with the absence of books of account, supported the finding that the petitioner was carrying on regular commercial activity as an importer and dealer rather than acting as a casual trader. On those materials, the revisional authorities held that the turnover exceeded the statutory threshold relied on for exemption from registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The turnover-limit argument therefore failed, and the challenge to the revisional order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, on the facts found in inspection and revision, could claim exemption from registration on the basis of the turnover limit under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The inspection revealed large quantities of live chicken at the business premises, absence of books of account, and a business activity continuing through multiple sheds with regular purchase, rearing and sale. The authorities found that the petitioner was not a casual trader but was carrying on continuous commercial activity as an importer and dealer in chicken. On the materials accepted by the revisional authorities, the turnover exceeded the statutory threshold relied on by the petitioner, and the contention that the turnover limit protected the petitioner from registration was rejected.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.

---