IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 108 of 2008 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN & RP 3/2007 IN TA.25/2007 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- A.V.RAPEAL, SUPREME PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS, PARANNUR, CHOONDAL, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH RESPONDENT: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev.Case No. 108 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26thday of March, 2008. ORDER H.L.DATTU, CJ, Appellant-petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (“the KGST Act” for short). The assessing authority for the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 had completed the best judgment assessment by rejecting the books of accounts produced by the dealer. 2. The best judgment assessment so passed by the assessing authority was modified by the first appellate authority by reducing the additions made by the assessing authority. The assessee, not being satisfied with the modifications so made, has approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also granted some reliefs to the appellant. Aggrieved by these orders passed by the authorities under the Act and the Tribunal, the assessee is before us in this Tax Revision Case filed under Section 41 of the KGST Act. 2. According to the assessee, the nature of the work carried on by him would fall under Entry 22 of 4th Schedule to the KGST Act and not as decided by the assessing authority. Therefore, the assessee and his learned counsel would contend that the rate of tax that was applicable to the assessee's case is only at the rate of 8% and not at the rate of 12%. 3. The aforesaid issue, at no point of time, was urged and argued by the assessee before the Tribunal. What is not urged and argued before the Tribunal cannot be urged and argued for the first time in the Tax Revision Case. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the assessee cannot be taken note of by us. S.T.Rev.108/2008. 2 4. Since the assessments have been completed purely on estimation basis, and since the findings of the authorities are not so perverse, the question of interfering with those orders would not arise. Therefore, we reject this Tax Revision Case. Consequently, I.A. 804 of 2008 is closed. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.