IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 8 of 2008() ------------------------------- TA.288/2005 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S /RESPONDENT/REVENUE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MOHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.NAVARATNA CHEMICALS, 4/689, MAKKADA P.O., KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, 673 617. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.8 of 2008-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This Sales Tax Revision is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode in T.A.No.288 of 2005. 2. The questions of law raised in the memorandum of revision reads as follows: “a. Has not the Tribunal erred in finding that the conversion of solid sodium silicate to its liquid form will amount to manufacture for the purpose of granting concessional rate of tax to SSI Units, as per SRO 1091/1999? b. Whether the Tribunal is justified in giving an extended meaning to the term “manufacture” beyond the definition given in the SRO No.1091/1999 to the term? c. Whether mere conversion of a commodity from its solid form to liquid form, amount to manufacture for the purpose of granting concessional rate under the provisions of SRO No.1091/1999?” STRV No.8/2008 -2- 3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the issue raised in this case is covered in favour of the revision petitioner, State of Kerala by virtue of the decision in Navarathana Chemicals vs. State of Kerala {2007 (7) VST 698 (Ker)}. We follow the same and allow the Sales Tax Revision and answer the questions of law framed in favour of the revision petitioner. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS