IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 376 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN STRV.134/2009 Dated 24/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------- THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM-686 004. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.376 of 2010 in S.T. Rev. No.134 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. This Review Petition is filed by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala which is a State Government undertaking. In the judgment under review, we confirmed disallowance of concessional rate of sales tax on interstate sales for non-production of C Forms. However, the Company's case is that C Forms were later obtained. However, we do not find any justification to reopen an old settled assessment of 1997- 98 because petitioner being a fully owned Government of Kerala undertaking, does not really save anything by getting the sales tax liability reduced for one year. If sales tax liability is reduced, petitioner's agricultural income will go up and petitioner will have to pay higher amount of agricultural income tax to the State Government. Similarly if petitioner saves sales tax as well as agricultural income tax, then net profit will be high and the entire amount will go to the same Government towards dividend because Government is the only shareholder of the company. We, therefore, feel this is an unnecessary 2 litigation pursued by the Company to reopen 13 year old matter and if we remand the case based on the C Forms now obtained, still there is no guarantee that claim will be fully allowed by accepting all Forms produced as proving all the transactions. In other words, remand will be beginning of another round of litigation leading to further expenditure to the Company. Consequently the Review Petition is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms