IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 ST.Rev.No.23 of 2005 --------------------------------------- TA.No.383/1998 OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM (ORDER DATED 8TH NOVEMBER, 2001) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S. INDIAN OPTICALS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.23 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition is filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.383/1998 dated 8th November, 2001. (2). The Revenue has framed the following question of law for our consideration and decision. It is as under: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that lenses, frames, goggles etc. were eligible for reduced rate of tax of 4% as per SRO 429/95?” (2). Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Pleader (for Taxes) fairly submits that the aforesaid legal issue in fact did not come up for consideration before the Tribunal. (3). What can be urged and argued before this Court is only a question of law which is erroneously decided or failed to decide by the Tribunal. The afore-said question of law, if it did not come up for consideration before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Revenue is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the revision petition requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected for the S.T.Rev.No.23/2005 -2- reason that the afore-said question of law did not come up for consideration before the Tribunal for consideration and decision. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE MS