IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 500 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OTAP.8/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- M/S. JOHNSON AND JOHNON LIMITED, C7FA M/S. KOTTARAM AGENCIES, XI/423 HMT ROAD, KALMASSERY ERNAKULAM 683503. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSOM RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE-1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. AST. COMMISSIONER(AUDIT ASSESSMENT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(AUDIT ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 500 OF 2009 in O.T.A.NO. 8 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We do not notice any mistake in the judgment warranting interference in review proceedings. The very same arguments raised by the petitioner before us while hearing the appeal are now raised in the Review Petition. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that compounding rate at 4% on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was collected for the sale of medicine only in Pharma Division and in other Divisions, petitioner sold medicines under the VAT scheme, we are unable to accept the contention because compounding under Section 8(e) is for the sale of the product as a whole and not for sales from one Division alone. Therefore when payment of tax under the scheme of compounding under Section 8(e) is found by the Commissioner and confirmed by this 2 Court, entire turnover of medicine from all Divisions is assessable on MRP at the rate of 4% as provided under Section 8(e) of the Act. Even though counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. V. VINAY KUMAR JAIN, AIR 1997 SC 342 pertaining to UP Entertainment Tax Act, we see that decision has no application because compounding for payment of entertainment tax is based on licence which again is based on seating capacity of the theatre, whereas in this case all what is required is billing on the MRP value at 4%. Review Petition is consequently dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3