IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 1100 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN STRV.235/2004 Dated 11/09/2006 TA.364/2002 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE ST.REVISION -------------------------------------------------------------- M.ASSIYAMMA, PRIPRIETRIX, UNIVERSAL WOODCRAFTS CO.,SANTHIPALLAM, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE ST.REVISION --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, ALONG WITH RP 1101 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.M. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No.1100/2007 in ST Rev. 235/2004, R.P.No.1101/2007 in ST Rev. 233/2004, R.P. No. 1102/2007 in ST Rev. 232/2004, R.P. No. 1103/2007 in ST Rev. 230/2004, R.P. No. 1104/2007 in ST Rev. 234/2004 & R.P. No. 1118/2007 in ST Rev. 231/2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. These Review Petitions are filed against common judgment of this Court wherein this Court upheld the order of the Tribunal declaring the assessments for 1994-95 to 1996-97 as completed within time. Review Petitioner's case is that since assessments were already completed on 28.1.2001, assessments were not pending to apply the limitation introduced by proviso to Section 17 by Finance Act, 2006. However, this Court took the view that even if the assessments are declared invalid on account of time bar, the consequence would be that returns will be pending and it will be still within the time frame under the amended provision for the officer to make assessments. We do not find any mistake in the judgment rendered based on the amendment subsequently introduced by Finance Act, 2006. Even though counsel 2 for the review petitioner prayed for remand of the matter to the Tribunal to consider factual position, there is no scope for deciding any factual controversy in respect of limitation claimed against assessments. Consequently the prayer for remand is also rejected. In the result review petitions will stand dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge. kk 3