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 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 87 of 2009() ------------------------ TA.132/2007 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ VALSA JOSEPH, M/S.KURISSUMOOTTIL TRADING COMPANY, DEALERS IN HILL PRODUCE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LAW, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, ALONG WITH STRV NO.309 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. Nos.87/2009 & 309/2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected revisions arise from common order of the Tribunal issued in T.A. No.132/2007 which arise from the assessment of the assessee for the year 2001-2002. The question raised in the revision filed by the assessee is whether Tribunal was justified in upholding assessment of rubber cess as part of turnover. This issue is covered by judgment of the Supreme Court against the assessee. Consequently revision filed by the assessee is dismissed. 2. So far as the revision filed by the State is concerned, the question raised is whether Tribunal was justified in granting refund of excess tax paid inspite of bar against the same under SRO 770/2002. The Government reduced the rate of tax on rubber under this notification for the period commencing from 1.11.2001 to 15.11.2001. It is seen from the Tribunal's order that assessee paid tax at the rate covered by the notification, though issued later. However, the 2 Assistant Commissioner demanded differential tax by separate proceeding and the same was paid under protest by the assessee. When payment was made under protest, Tribunal treated it as not a voluntary payment and consequently refund of excess tax was ordered. We do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order because rubber is a commodity taxable at last purchase point and therefore, collection of tax does not arise at all. Since the assessee has paid tax under protest, the Tribunal rightly ordered refund as it is not a case of voluntary payment of tax covered by notification. We, therefore, dismiss the revision filed by the State. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms