IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 151 of 2008() ------------------------- AITA.2/2003 of AGRL.I.T.ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- M.A.AJITH PRASAD JAIN, MANIANCODE ESTATE MANIANCODE P.O., WAYANAD. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.151 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal rectifying their earlier order and cancelling the AIT assessment of the respondent for the year 1997-98. We have heard Government Pleader for the revision petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admittedly assessment that was subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal was invalid for the reason that notice was not issued granting statutory minimum period of time to the assessee to file return. Government Pleader submitted that this ground was not raised by the respondent in the appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the relief cannot be claimed in rectification proceedings. However, counsel for the respondent submitted that the validity of the assessment is a matter which could be considered by the Tribunal based on records itself and so much so, this ground could be entertained by the Tribunal in rectification proceedings. We do not think there is any need to decide 2 this controversy because even if we allow the revision and restore the Tribunal's order, the respondent can file either a review before the Tribual or a revision before this court or even a writ petition before this court challenging the original order of the Tribunal. In other words, respondent will be able to get the illegal assessment cancelled through other legal proceeding even if we allow the revision. We, therefore, feel that even if we allow the revision on technicalities, the same will lead to only further litigation and ultimately the State will not be a beneficiary of the litigiation as the assessment admittedly is invalid. Consequently Revision case is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms