IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 TRC.No. 221 of 2001 -------------------------- TA.691/1994 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:: ------------------------------------------------------ METRO TRADING SYNDICATE, COCHIN - 2. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF K ERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SR.) SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS TAX REVISION CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T.R.C. No. 221 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 Order H.L. Dattu, C. J: This revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.691 of 1994 dated 30/9/2000. The assessee in this revision petition has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions for sales tax, additional sales tax and surcharge etc. are expenses charged by the petitioner and hence have to be added on to the commission to deny the petitioner the benefit conferred by SRO 1341 of 1987. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the packing charges, forwarding charges, insurance charges, brokerage and bank charges incurred after purchase on TRC.221/2001. 2 behalf of the principals outside the State are expenses charged by the petitioner and hence have to be added to the commission to deny the petitioner the benefit conferred by SRO 1341 of 1987. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the words aggregate commission including expenses charged and interest levied by the dealer in SRO 1341 of 1987 included provisions for tax, additional tax, surcharge etc. (iv) Whether the assessing officer ought to have examined individual purchases in granting exemption from turnover tax payable under Section 5(2A) in accordance with SRO.1341 of 1987” 2. Both the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis would inform us that the issue raised in this revision petition is no more debatable, in view of the declaration of law made by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Merchandisers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (TRC 336 of 2000 disposed of on 18th February, 2005). In the said decision the Full Bench at paragraph 9 has observed as under: “9. In view of the foregoing observations and findings we are of the view that SRO.1341/87 does not affect the levy of TRC.221/2001. 3 turnover tax on rubber at penultimate purchase point or at the last purchase point based on the above referred to notifications. The petitioners being dealers in rubber though as agents of outside principals are liable to pay turnover tax, and exemption if any allowable has to be granted based on declarations produced under notifications SRO 715 & 716/88, which are upheld by this Court and Supreme Court. Since we find SRO 1341 of 1987 is not applicable for the purchase of rubber by the petitioners, there is no need for us to consider the questions referred to us and the correctness of the decision of this Court rendered earlier as the issue is only academic so far as these cases are concerned. Therefore we decline to answer the questions raised in the TRC and ST. Revs. but set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remand the cases to the Tribunal for considering the petitioners' claim of exemption on turnover tax based on SRO.Nos.715 & 716/88.” TRC.221/2001. 4 3. Respectfully following the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court, the questions of the law framed by the assessee requires to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We do so. Accordingly, we reject this Revision Petition. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an.