IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.72 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2003 IN T.A.No.112 OF 2002 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, ERNAKULAM (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------- M/S. KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL 682 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (F&A), MR. N.VIJAYAGOPAL. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, ALONG WITH S.T.REV.NO.86 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & M.C.Hari Rani,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.Nos.72 of 2004 & 86 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. These Sales Tax Revisions pertain to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. They arise out of an order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A.Nos.112 of 2002 and 113 of 2002 dated 19.3.2003. 2. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “i) In the facts and circumstances of the case ought not the tribunal have held that the excise duty paid by the oil marketing companies do not form part of the turnover of the Petitioner for the purpose of levy of turnover tax? ii) Whether the appellate tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the excise duty paid by the oil marketing companies will form part of the sales turnover of the Petitioner for the purposes of levy of turnover tax more so when the price at which the Petitioner sells goods to the oil marketing company and the price at which the oil marketing company sells the goods and discharges the duty liability (The ex-storage point ceiling selling price) are different?” 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.Nos.1252 of 1999, 1253 of 1999, 926 of 2000 and 409 of 2002 for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1995-96, was before this Court in S.T.Rev.Nos.22 of 2004, 56 of 2004, 58 of 2004 and 44 of 2004. This Court, after detailed consideration of the case pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner and following the observations made by the apex Court in the case of M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. State of Kerala [(1975) 5 KTR 40] was pleased to reject the S.T.Rev.72 & 86 of 2004 - 2 - revision petitions and, accordingly, had answered the questions of law framed by the assessee against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 4. Since the questions of law raised by the revision petitioner are identical with what were considered and decided in S.T.Rev.No.22 of 2004 and other connected revision petitions, disposed of on 18.12.2007, these revision petitions also require to be rejected and the questions of law framed by the assessee require to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice M.C.Hari Rani Judge vku/-