IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 22 of 2011() ------------------------ TA.44/2009 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------- P.M.DAVID (ROCKMAN ENTERPRISES TVM) PARACKAL HOUSE, PMC 8/267, KACHERIPADY, N.PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.DAVID (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMNT, TAXES DEPT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDEEN. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, ALONG WITH STRV.NO.23/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kvs/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair & Bhabani Prasad Ray, JJ. ==================================== S.T.Revns.22 & 23 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected sales tax revision cases are filed against orders of the Tribunal rejecting the review petitions filed by the petitioner for reviewing the orders of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1996- 97 and 1997-98. We have heard the petitioner in person and have perused the Tribunal's orders. Petitioner contended that petitioner has not collected tax from the customers and therefore forfeiture of tax under Section 46A is not justified. However, on going through the Tribunal's order, we notice that the Tribunal has gone through the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer has recorded that on verifying the ledger account he found that the petitioner has collected tax. The Tribunal therefore found that the appellate orders issued by them are free from any mistake warranting review of the said orders. The factual finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner has collected STRV22&23/11 -:2:- tax from the dealers, though not separately shown in the invoice, and the same is evident from the records. There is no scope for interference. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. Bhabani Prasad Ray, Judge. sl.