IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 261 of 2006 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE IN TA.310/2005 DATED 29.05.06. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- SRI. JAYABALAN K.P., PROPRIETOR, M/S. JAYBEES TREADS, CHOORAL, MATHIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS// REVENUE/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVENMENT PLEADER, SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, ALONG WITH ST(RV) No. 263/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ST(RV)Nos. 261 and 263 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July 2008 O R D E R H.L.DATTU, C.J. In these two revision petitions we are concerned with assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 2. The assessee had claimed reduced rate of tax at 3% for the sales turnover of tread rubber. The assessing authority while completing the assessments for the assessment years in question had rejected the claim of the assessee by rejecting the annual returns filed by the assessee and thereafter had proceeded to pass best judgment assessment. 3. Before the first appellate authority, the petitioner's contention was that he has purchased the industrial unit which was paying tax at the reduced rate of tax on sales turnover of Tread Rubber in view of SRO No.1090/1999, and therefore, entitled for concessional rate of tax.. 4. The first appellate authority after accepting the claim of the assessee has allowed the appeals and further has directed the assessing authority to grant concessional rate of tax at 3% in respect of the sales turnover of tread rubber. Subsequently, the first appellate authority has modified its order by restricting the claim of the assessee only after 29.04.2000. ST(RV) Nos.261 & 263/2006 2 5. The appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the first appellate authority is rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal at paragraph 4 of its order has observed as under: “4. We have considered the contentions raised by both sides. The only question to be decided is that whether the appellant is eligible for concessional rate prior to 29.04.2000. The certificate issued by the General manager, District Industries Centre, Kannur revealed that the application itself has filed on 24.04.2000 and the Certificate was granted on 29.04.2000. As this be the position we find that the contentions raised by the appellant is devoid of any merit. Hence dismissed.” 6. Petitioner's claim before the assessing authority was that it is an SSI Unit and therefore entitled for concessional rate of tax on the turnover of tread rubber. The reliance was squarely on the notification issued by the State Government in SRO No.1090/1999. In order to get the benefit under that notification, the industrial unit requires to be registered as SSI Unit. For the first time the petitioner's industrial unit got itself registered only with effect from 29.04.2000. Keeping that date in view, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the ST(RV) Nos.261 & 263/2006 3 petitioner is in fact entitled for the reduced rate of tax/concessional rate of tax for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 only with effect from 29.4.2000. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal is neither erroneous nor illegal, since they have strictly applied the conditions prescribed in the notification SRO No.1090/99. 7. Before the appellate authority it was not the case of the assessee that by virtue of the orders passed by the State Government, dated 31.08.88, it is entitled for a concessional/reduced rate of tax at 3%. What was not urged or argued before the authorities concerned, can not be argued for the first time before this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, while rejecting the revision petitions, we confirm the orders passed by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE ttb/dk