IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 99 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN STRV.265/2009 Dated 25/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- M/S.SUNNY JOSEPH JEWELLERS AND WEDDING CENTRE MARKET JUNCTION, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL KOTTARAKKARA REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER SUNNY JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.99 of 2010 in S.T. Rev. No.265 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The Review Petition is filed for the reason that this court has not considered one ground raised by the petitioner pertaining to rate of tax applicable on the purchase turnover of old gold ornaments. Government Pleader submitted that the question was not raised or decided before the Tribunal and the position was repeated in this court as well. If it was brought to the notice of this court that the Tribunal has not considered a ground raised, this court probably would have directed the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. In any case if rate of tax on the purchase turnover of old gold ornaments during the year to which the assessment pertains is only 1% as claimed by the petitioner, then we see no reason why it should not be given to the petitioner. Counsel contended that under item 10 of Schedule II of SRO 1091/99 rate of tax on purchase of old gold ornaments was only 1%, if the purchase is for remaking new ornaments and selling the 2 same. Of course the petitioner had only contested purchase turnover sustained by the Tribunal and was modified by this court. However, suppression found is no ground for denying benefit of concessional rate to the petitioner. The purchase turnover of old gold ornaments estimated in assessment, sustained by the Tribunal and modified by this court in revision should be subjected to only applicable rate of tax. We, therefore, allow the Review Petition by modifying the judgment with direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the rate of tax applicable, particularly with reference to the provisions of the above Notification and if it is only 1%, to revise the assessment in terms of the notification and issue revised order without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms