IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/ 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 STRV.No. 92 of 2011 ( ) ======================= AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/01/2009 IN TA.107/2007 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ====================== 1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.MR.BOBBY JOHN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ====================== 1 GEORGE THOMAS,KOLATH HOUSE, KURICHI, PIN- 686 549. BY ADV.SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.T.REV.NO.92/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ORDER RAISING THE ASSESSMENT DATED 25/04/2006. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 14/03/2007. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31/01/2009. ANNEXURE-D : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN S.T.R.NO.219/09 DATED 11/11/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T.Rev.No.92 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised is whether reassessment completed under Section 19(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) was rightly held to be invalid by the Tribunal for the reason that the original assessment was based on compounding. This issue stands decided in favour of the Revenue vide the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s.Joy Alukkas Traders (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010(1) KHC 844. Even though learned counsel for the respondent assessee submitted that the decision of this Court is rendered in the context of supervisory jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35, we do not think there is any difference between the powers of the Officer under Section 19(1) of the Act and the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of S.T.Rev.No.92/2011 -2- the Act. In fact in the judgment, we have held that Section 19 (1) also applies to an assessment completed based on compounding. So much so in principle, we allow the revision by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and by holding that Section 19(1) is validly initiated. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent produced work orders with detailed schedule therein, wherein the items of work are specified with rates. It is seen that the reassessment is completed under Section 19(1) exparte on account of non- appearance of the respondent assessee. We feel the respondent should be given one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer to produce the contracts, for the Officer to verify whether the reassessment completed under Section 19 (1) in respect of the items of the work executed for PWD, i.e. fish farming, is correctly made. The assessee is directed to produce copy of this judgment along with the work order and other details for the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter. S.T.Rev.No.92/2011 -3- Therefore, this revision case is allowed by vacating the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessment confirmed in first appeal to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. If the assessee does not produce the records or appear before the Assessing Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the Assessing Officer can treat the reassessment as final. If the assessee produces records along with a copy of this judgment, the Assessing Officer will reconsider the assessment afresh and make modifications to the extent necessary. This S.T.Revision case is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg