IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 77 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN STRV.253/2006 Dated 29/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- P.VINOD, CHANDINI ENTERPRISES, KANDAYAM (H) THOTTINGAL ROAD, PUDUPALLY STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): REVN.PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U. NAZAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & P. S. Gopinathan, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 77 of 2009 in S.T.Rev.No.253 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. Order Basheer, J: Petitioner who is the assessee has raised the following questions of law in this review petition. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , is not the finalisation of the assessment by treating the value shown at the time of entry into the State in the transport documents is illegal and arbitrary as such value is shown upon compulsion only and actual purchase value is borne out by the books of accounts? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is not the Tribunal justified in accepting the case of the assessee when only the net sale value is declared in the return for the year 2000-01. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that for the assessment year 2000- 2001, petitioner had filed the return only showing the net value of chicken sold, and that was why penalty was imposed on him on the ground that there was variance in the purchase value shown in the delivery notes and the books of accounts. In the cases decided through the common order the assessee had filed revised returns. But the review petitioner had not filed revised return during the relevant assessment year. According to the petitioner, this aspect was not considered by this Court while disposing of the Sales Tax Revision Cases. 3. It is primarily contended by the learned Special Govt. Pleader that the assessment being under Section 19 of the Act, petitioner cannot now RP.77/2009. 2 take up the above contention. 4. While disposing of the Tax Revision Cases filed by the Revenue through the common order, the above contentions were considered elaborately and the questions of law framed by the Revenue were answered in its favour and against the assessee. Same contentions are now being sought to be reagitated by the assessee. However if the petitioner is of the view that he would get the benefit of the common order since he had not filed the revised return, it will be open to him to pursue the matter in accordance with law. We do not find any reason to entertain this review petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge P. S. Gopinathan Judge an.