IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 221 of 2006() ------------------------- TA.226/2004 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIOER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW MAPPILA, HOTEL THILAK, CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON FOR R1 SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON FOR R1 SMT.MEERA V.MENON FOR R1 THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.K.MOHANAN, J. ================================ S.T.Rv.No.221 of 2006 =============================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. O R D E R KOSHY, Ag.CJ. Two questions of law arising for consideration in this revision. 1. Ought not the Tribunal have held that the sale of soda and cola in a bar attached hotel is exigible to tax at 20% and 25% under Entry 141 and 97 respectively of the First Schedule and not under Entry 46 thereof? 2. Is not the Tribunal in error in reducing the addition made to turnover of IMFL from Rs.20,00,00/- to Rs.15,00,000/- in respect of turnover at Head Office at Chengannur and from Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/- in respect of turnover at branch office at Thiruvalla in view of the serious irregularities and pattern of suppression detected consequent to inspection carried out by the Department? Has not the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in such interference? S.T.Rv.No.221 of 2006 2 2. With regard to the question A, the matter is decided in favour of the Revenue by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Lazarus Alosius vs. State of Kerala (2005 (2) KLT 604 FB). Therefore, that is decided in favour of the Revenue. With regard to question B, we are of the opinion that it is based on fact and no interference is required. Therefore, question B is decided in favour of the assessee. Let the assessing officer revise the assessment accordingly. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/-