IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 ST.Rev.No.38 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- TA.No.394/2001OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 20-1-2003) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:- --------------------------------------------------- K.R.UNNIKRISHNAN, KOOTUPATHA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.REV.No.38 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Palakkad in T.A.No.394/2001 dated 20th January, 2003. (2). The revision petitioner has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “ A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in holding that the assessment for 1994-95 is not barred by limitation? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in applying the decision of this Hon'ble Court in OP No.17807/93 dated 10-11-99 as well as the proviso to section 17 (6) of the KGST Act? C. Has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in failing to note that since no return is filed the assessment has to be finalised as a case of escaped assessment u/s 19 within the time limit prescribed thereunder as held by this Hon'ble Court in K. Baby vs. State of Kerala (2001) 121 STC 569 and V.S. Prabhakaran vs. State of Kerala (2001) 121 STC 586? S.T.Rev.No.38/2004 -2- (3). The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner very fairly submits that, the questions of law framed by the petitioner require to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue in view of the law declared by this Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Shahid (2006 (2) KLT 484 (FB). In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER (i). The Revision Petition is disposed of. (ii). The questions of law framed by the petitioner is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS