IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 ST.Appl..No. 2 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2010 IN R3-33015/08/CT of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE/ REV. PETITIONER -------------------- M.R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, MRS ENTERPRISES, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): / REVENUE / REVENUE --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 033. MR.BOBBY JOHN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SALES TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STA NO.2/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-I : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 06/05/2004 OF THE IAC (IB), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-II : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21/05/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.15128/2004. ANNEXURE-III : COPY OF ORDER DATED 04/06/2004 OF THE IAC (IB), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-IV : COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/07/2008 OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-V : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27/08/2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-VI : COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/11/2010. ANNEXURE-VII : COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/12/2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... S.T.A. No.2 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The appellant is challenging orders issued in adjudication proceedings based on Annexure-II judgment. Even though the first revision was allowed cancelling the demand raised against the appellant/petitioner, the order is revised by the Commissioner in suo motu revision stating that settlement agreed upon by the petitioner by making payment based on the judgment of this Court produced as Annexure-II cannot be questioned by the petitioner in revision. 3. After hearing both sides and after going through Annexure-II judgment of this Court what we notice is that this Court offered settlement to the appellant to release the detained truck and goods therein by remitting 3 times of tax for the goods and 2 times of tax or Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) whichever is higher for the truck. It is seen S.T.A.No.2/2011 2 from the judgment that if the appellant does not accept settlement granted by this Court as above, the appellant is bound to remit the value of the goods and also the value of the truck for release pending adjudication. The appellant by making remittance as stated in the first part of the judgment accepted settlement. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled even to challenge the order issued in terms of the judgment. If the appellant wanted to contest liability, the appellant should have remitted the value of the goods and also of the vehicle and contested the liability in adjudication. So long as this is not done, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge settlement granted by this Court based on which payments were made by the appellant. Consequently, we see no merit in the appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, this S.T.Appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg