IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 106 of 2009 ---------------------------------- [TA.NO.250/2005 OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------------------- CASTROL INDIA LIMITED, ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------- S.T. Revision No.106 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st August, 2010 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision is filed by the State Government contending that Tribunal has wrongly allowed the respondent's claim for discount. 2. We have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for revision petitioner and Adv. Sri.K. Sreekumar appearing for respondent. 3. Learned Government Pleader has relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in I.F.P Industries Limited Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KLT 522], wherein, this Court has explained the scope of discount allowable under Rule 9 (a) of the KGST Rules. 4. Since the Tribunal has passed orders prior to the judgment and since the factual position in regard to the discount allowed by the respondent is not considered in the Tribunal's order, we set aside the order of the S.T. Revision No.106 of 2009 2 Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh after going through the above judgment and other judgments which are relevant on the subject. However, we make it clear that the Tribunal will specifically consider the provisions applicable for the year in question and decisions rendered prior to amendment should not be applied. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE ma