IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 370 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2008 IN CO 11/2007 & TA.312/2007 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(LAW),COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPL. G.P. SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- SRI.SAI RAJESH, KING LIQUOR BAR & RESTAURANT, PATTAMBI. ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR FOR R1 SMT.K.HYMAVATHY FOR R1 THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.370 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent. Two questions are raised in the revision filed by the State. So far as the first question is concerned, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal because the result of first inspection is reflected in the original assessment. The department has detected further omission on an inspection conducted after the end of the year. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal took the view based on another decision of this court that when inspection is carried out after the end of the year, the actual suppression found only could be added to the turnover. We, therefore, dismiss the revision on this issue. However, so far as the second question i.e. cancellation of interest demanded is concerned, we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal because when a specific case of application of Section 23(3A) was made, it was 2 the duty of the Tribunal to consider whether Section 23(3A) is applicable. On the other hand, Tribunal took the view that officer has taken into account only Section 23(3) and based on the same, Tribunal cancelled he demand. We allow the revision reversing the order of the Tribunal on this issue and with direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the application of Section 23(3A) and to rework interest after notice to the respondent-assessee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms