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 NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 787 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN STRV.216/2003 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. NL MAHALINGAM & CO., 68, DR. NANJAPPA ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A. SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, ALONG WITH RP 788 & 789 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.M. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No.787/2008 in STRV No.216/2003 R.P.No. 788/2008 in STRV No.203/2003 & R.P.No. 789/2008 in STRV No. 215/2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair,J. Connected Review Petitions arise from our judgment in S.T. Rev. Nos. 203, 215 & 216 of 2003 wherein we held that automobile diesel engines are covered by Entry 86 and not Entry 77 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. Decision was rendered by holding that diesel engines used for automobiles are a specific category and the same will not be covered by general Entry providing for diesel engines. Our judgment is confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner relied on Annexure C issued by Secretary (Taxes) on 19.4.1996 stating that motor engines being diesel engines will fall under Entry 77(1) of the First Schedule to the KGST Act and filed Writ Petitions challenging the authority of the respondents to recover tax, de 2 hors the judgment of this Court in the Revision Cases. However, Writ Petitions were closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to file Review Petition if the same is tenable. Writ Appeals are also dismissed. Consequently, these Review Petitions are filed against common judgment in S. T. Revs. 3. Even though counsel appearing for the petitioner requested for time for engaging senior counsel, on considering merits of the case, we do not find any arguable case, because the letter of the Secretary, Board of Taxes is not statutory clarification on rate of tax issued under Section 59A of the KGST Act. In fact, we do not know under what authority he has issued this clarification. At the maximum letter states the opinion of Secretary (Taxes) which is contrary to the judicial view taken by us in our judgment. In the circumstances, we reject the request for adjournment by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard counsel for the review petitioner and Government Pleader for respondents. The only basis for filing review petitions being the letter of the Secretary, Board of Revenue (Taxes), which is not statutory order under Section 59A of the KGST Act, we do not find 3 any ground for reviewing the judgment. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that other dealers have got the benefit of Annexure C, we do not think irregular grant of relief to other dealers is a ground to review judgment by which we have interpreted the statute. Review Petitions are accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge. kk 4