IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 705 of 2011 ( ) ====================== (AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTRV.57/2010) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER === F.H.NAZEER AHAMMED,PROPRIETOR, M/S.MALANAD ENTERPRISES P.T ROAD VADAKARA PIN 673 101. BY ADV.SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: === 1 TEH COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA) KOZHIKODE, PIN.673 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES-1, (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE, PIN.673 001. 3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, PIN.682 016. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM, PIN.695 001. BY SPL. G.P. SRI.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPALLY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.705 of 2011 in O.T. Rev. No.57 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Two issues are raised in the R.P. First one is regarding the jurisdiction of the Audit Officer to complete assessment when the Assessing Officer himself could complete regular assessment under Section 24 of the KVAT Act. However, while disposing of the case we held that the issue stands decided in favour of the Revenue in Writ Appeal No.183/2009 dated 5.2.2009. Review is filed for the reason that the time for regular assessment by the officer was not over when the Audit Officer made assessment under Section 25. However, it is seen from the Tribunal's order that since returns were accepted, there is a self-assessment by operation of the provisions of the Act. The remaining question to be considered is whether the Audit Officer can make a turnover escaping assessment under Section 25 which issue stands decided by judgment of this court above referred. We, 2 therefore, do not find any merit in the R.P. on this issue. 2. The second question raised is with regard to the eligibility for special rebate under Section 12 of the Act read with Rule 38(5) of the KVAT Rules. However, it is seen that this issue was not decided by the Tribunal as the first appellate authority had directed the Assessing Officer to consider assessee's eligibility for the same. Since this issue was not raised or decided in the tax appeal, there is no scope for considering it in review. If review petitioner does not get relief based on the remand order by the first appellate authority, it is for him to pursue the matter in another round of appeal. Consequently R.P. is dismissed as devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms