IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23430 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M.DAVID, ROCKMAN ENTERPRISES, KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. P.M.DAVID(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDL. SALESTAX OFFICER II, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES II CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 31.5.04 ISSUED BY R1. P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 16.3.2001 ISSUED BY R1. P3 COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DT 30.6.03. P4 COPY OF TEST CERTIFICATE. P5 COPY OF NOTIFICATION SRO 405/94. P6 COPY OF ORDER DT 12.12.05. P7 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 21.2.07. P8 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT 21.2.07. P9 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT 6.2.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 23430 OF 2004 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is the order assessing the petitioner to tax, inter alia, in respect of plastic bowl sets. According to the petitioner, he should have been assessed tax at 4% under item 13 to SRO 405/94 but the 1st respondent levied tax at 10%. Originally, the petitioner came to be assessed at 10% in respect of the aforesaid goods. The petitioner filed appeal. The appellate authority remanded the case for the purpose of ascertaining the rate of tax. The revenue went in appeal on the ground that the first appellate authority lacks jurisdiction for remanding the case. The Appellate Tribunal sent back the matter to the assessing authority. Ext.P3 is the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P4 is the test certificate issued by the Department of Polymer Science & Rubber Technology, Cochin University. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner has produced Exts.P6 to P9 also. Ext.P6 is the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. It relates to the year 1997-98. Therein, the Appellate Tribunal, taking note of Ext.P3 order, remitted the WPC.23430/04 : 2 : matter back for considering the rate of tax. Thereafter, by Ext.P7 order dated 6.7.2006, the assessing authority accepted the case of the petitioner in regard to the goods in question. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal in respect of forfeiture of tax in the same year as evident by Ext.P8 order. Ext.P9 is the appellate order for the year 1998-99 in which the appellate authority has directed the assessing authority to levy tax at 4% for the plastic can items as done in the previous years. 2. I heard the party in person and learned Government Pleader. 3. In the light of Exts.P6 to P9, I feel that the matter has to be reconsidered and accordingly, Ext.P1 is quashed in relation to the plastic containers. In all other respects, I confirm the assessment. The first respondent will consider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks / TRUE COPY / P.A.TO JUDGE