IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 TRC.No. 70 of 2001 --------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 31-3-2000 IN T.A.NO.53/1997 OF KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-1991) .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT: APPELLANT:ASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------------------- LAKSHMY RUBBER INDUSTRIES, POOVATTUPARAMBA. THIS TAX REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ T.R.C.No.70 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of August, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. This tax revision case is filed by the Revenue inter alia calling in question the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A.No.53 of 1997 dated 31.3.2000. 2. This revision petition pertains to the assessment year 1990-1991. 3. The assessee is a dealer in rubber products. In the returns filed for the assessment year 1990-1991, the assessee had claimed concessional rate of tax relying upon the Notification issued by the State Government in S.R.O.No.575/1990. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the Notification SRO.No.575/1990 is applicable only with effect from 1.4.1990 and not for the assessment year in question. 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority, the assessee had filed S.T.A.No.596/1995 before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority by his order dated 3-4-1995 had rejected the appeal filed by the assessee and has confirmed TRC No. 70/2001 -2- the orders passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1990-1991. 5. Aggrieved by these two orders, the assessee had carried the matter by way of second appeal to the Tribunal in T.A.No.53/1997. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had taken up a contention that the assessee is entitled for concessional rate of tax of 3% on the sales turnover of his rubber products in view of the Government Order No.124/1988 dated 31.8.1988. 6. The Tribunal relying upon the observations made by this Court in the case of All Kerala S.S.Tread Rubber M.Association Vs. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 564) has allowed the assessee's appeal and has directed the assessing authority to modify the orders of assessment for the assessment year 1990-1991 granting concessional rate of tax at the rate of 3%. 7. Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is before us in this tax revision case. 8. The Revenue has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “a). Were not the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax on the sales turnover of rubber products in the light of G.O.(MS) 124/88 for whole period? TRC No. 70/2001 -3- b). Is not on a proper interpretation of the notifications on the subject, in any event the concession provided in G.O.M.S.124/88 is applicable only for limited period as has been specified in the subsequent notification and the clarification issued by the Department? c). Is the Tribunal correct in law in relying on G.O. (MS) 17/92 to say the G.O.M.S.124/88 is still in force? Is not the operation of these two notifications in two different fields/contexts?” 9. The Government Order dated 01.4.1990 had come up for consideration before this Court in All Kerala S.S.Tread Rubber M.Association Vs. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 564) . A Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has stated as under: “ In our considered opinion, the appellants are well founded in their submission that the benefit envisaged by the 1988 G.O. still continue to be in force in the face of Ext.P8 G.O dated 24.1.92 wherein it is categorically held out that “the Sales Tax Concessions announced for rubber based industries in G.O.(MS) No.124/88/ID dated 31.8.1988 will continue”. We find that the learned Single Judge has failed to advert to Ext.P8 G.O. which in clear and unambiguous terms provides that the benefit contemplated by the 1988 G.O. will continue in force. So long as the 1988 G.O. is not withdrawn by the Government or modified, that would continue to remain in force and govern the field.” 10. The view expressed by this Court has now been confirmed by the Apex Court also. TRC No. 70/2001 -4- 11. The Tribunal while granting the relief sought for by the assessee has mainly followed the dicta of this Court which has now been confirmed by the Apex Court. In view of that, in our opinion, we cannot take any exception to the orders passed by the Tribunal while allowing the assessee's appeal. In view of the above, while sustaining the orders passed by the Tribunal, we reject the revision petition filed by the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 12. Since we have rejected the revision petition filed by the Revenue, the petition (I.A.No.91/2008) filed by the Revenue to implead the partners of the respondent firm as additional respondents is dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS