IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 333 of 2006 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE IN TA.147/2004 DATED 27.02.06 .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT /REVENUE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K. MOHAMMED ARABI, M/S. UNIVERSAL WOOD CRAFTS, SANTHIPALLAM, KUMBALA. 2. ASSIYAMMA, W/O.K.MOHAMMED ARABI, M/S. UNIVERSAL WOOD CRAFTS, SANTHIPALLAM, KUMBALA. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, ALONG WITH S.T.REV.336/2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.Nos. 333, 336, 337,338, 344, & 352 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. Since the parties are the same and the legal issues involved in these revision petitions are also identical, these revision petitions are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Revenue calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A.Nos.147 to 152 of 2004 dated 27.2.2006. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has set aside the protective assessment orders passed by the assessing authority in exercise of the powers under Section 19 (c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 3. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority, the assessee was before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority has set aside the orders passed by the assessing authority. 4. The aforesaid order passed by the first appellate authority had been called in question by the State before the Tribunal in T.A.Nos.147 to 152 of 2004. The Tribunal in its well-considered order has observed at S.T.Rev.No.333/2006 & con.cases -2- paragraph 4 as under: “4. We have considered the contentions raised by both sides and perused the relevant records. The Ist issue to be considered is that whether the assessment completed on Sri.K.Mohammed Arabi treating as binami of Smt.M.Assiyumma Under section 19 ( c) is in order. Before coming into legal position we have considered the factual situation in this case. The records reveal that Smt.M.Assiyumma is the dealer registered under the KGST Act. She had obtained registration from Industries Department. Likewise she is an assessee under the Central Excise Act. There is no evidence on record that Sri.K.Mohammed Arabi has any role either in the business or by financing the assessee. Therefore, Sri.K.Muhammed Arabi cannot be treated as binami of Smt.K.M.Assiymma.......” 5. The Revenue has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “A. Whether the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal were justified in annulling the section 19C assessment made on the respondents-K.Mohammed Arabi and Assiyamma? B. Is not the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in the instant case having the effect of nullifying the whole effect of the assessment made on a dealer vitiated by law? C. Is not the lower authorities in error in their construction S.T.Rev.No.333/2006 & con.cases -3- and understanding about section 19C of the KGST Act and section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988?” 6. We have carefully gone through the reasoning of the Tribunal while rejecting the Revenu's appeal. We are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal. In our opinion, those reasons cannot be characterized either as arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, we decline to entertain these revision petitions. Accordingly we pass the following: Order i). The Revision Petitions are rejected. ii). The questions of law framed by the Revenue are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS