IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 73 of 2008 ------------------------ TA.258/2006 of COMMR.KERALA AGR.IT & STAT,TVM. .................... PETITIONER/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------ M/S. MOON CHEMICALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev. No.73 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. ORDER H.L.DATTU, CJ, Sri. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Pleader, is directed to take notice for the respondent. He is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks' time from today. 2. Since the issue involved in this revision petition lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No.258 of 2006 dated 27.4.2007. 5. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision, they are as under: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that conversion of Sodium Silicate into Carbonated Silicate is not manufacture? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in denying exemption when the issue is pending before the Screening Committee? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in sustaining the further addition for the suppressed turnover? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in upholding the demand for differential rate of tax by invoking Section 5(3)(ii)? S.T.Rev.73/2008. 2 (v) Is the order of the appellate tribunal vide. Annexure -C legal, valid and in accordance with law?” 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the findings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error while deciding the questions of law raised and canvassed by the petitioner and his learned counsel. Therefore, interference with the said order is not called for. Accordingly, without going into the other details of the case, the revision petition is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.