IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 S.T.Rev.No.57 of 2005 -------------------------------------------- T.A.NO.67/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-II, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 10/06/2002) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- SRI.PAULSON, P.G. P.G. GOLD COVERING ORNAMENTS, NAIKKANAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, ALONG WITH S.T.REV.NO.71 OF 2005 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.Nos.57 of 2005, 71 of 2005 , 73 of 2005 & 80 of 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. The Revenue has filed four revision petitions for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. 2. The assessee purchases ornaments made out of copper and brass. After electroplating and polishing those ornaments, effects sales of those items. The question before the assessing authority, first appellate authority and the revisional authority was that whether the assessee is exigible to levy of purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“Act” for short). 3. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Tribunal. None of the authorities have even noticed the factual matrix of the case in its proper perspective. To say the least, the Tribunal while rejecting the State's appeals, merely refers to the orders passed by the first appellate authority and then, in one sentence, confirms the order. The main question that ought to have been taken note of by the Tribunal is, whether the assessee comes within the parameters prescribed under Section 5A of the Act, which includes whether the assessee consumes the goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise. The Tribunal has not given any finding on this aspect of the matter. 4. In the absence of the relevant facts in the orders passed by the assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Tribunal, it may not be possible for this Court to give a finding one way or the other on the question of law framed by the S.T.Rev.No.57 of 2005 & connected cases - 2 - Revenue. In that view of the matter, without answering the question of law framed by the Revenue, we intend to remit the matter to the Tribunal to decide the appeals filed by the Revenue in T.A.Nos.60, 65, 66 and 67 of 2000 keeping in view the factual matrix pleaded by the assessee and then applying the provisions of Section 5A of the Act as explained by this Court in several decisions. 5. Accordingly, we pass the following:- Order (i) The revision petitions are disposed of. (ii) For the present we are not answering the question of law framed by the Revenue. (iii) The orders passed by the Tribunal in T.A.Nos.60, 65, 66 and 67 of 2000 dated 10.6.2002 for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 are set aside. (iv) The Tribunal is directed to restore T.A.Nos.60, 65, 66 and 67 of 2000 filed by the Revenue to its file and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing notices to both the parties. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.T.Sankaran Judge vku/-