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 TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 S.T.Rev..No. 154 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ORDER DATED 25.1.2007 IN TA.69/2006 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONALL BENCH-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- JAIMON THOMAS, PWD CONTRACTOR, KORATHARA, KANNADY. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM SRI.FRANKUR D.JAYAN SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.154 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 1st day of July, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision is directed against the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-II, Ernakulam in T.A.No.69 of 2006 dated 25th January, 2007. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has modified the orders passed by the first appellate authority and has confirmed the orders passed by the assessing authority. 2. The facts in nutshell are: the petitioner is a contractor. He was awarded two works by an authority which would come within the definition of 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The work that was awarded to the contractor was in relation to construction of Engine Thara and RCC Jetty. 3. For the assessment year 2000-01 the petitioner had opted for payment of tax under Section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short). The claim made by the contractor was allowed by the assessing authority and accordingly had completed the assessment in the petitioner's case under Section 7(7) of the Act. 4. Subsequently the assessing authority after issuing a notice under Section 19 of the Act, has revised the orders of assessment passed S.T.Rev.No.154 of 2008 2 for the assessment year 2000-01 and has completed the assessment under Section 7(7A) of the Act. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year in question had approached the first appellate authority. Assigning very strange reasons the first appellate authority has allowed the assessee's appeal. 6. The Revenue had carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 548) has allowed the Revenue's appeal and has confirmed the orders of re-assessment passed by the assessing authority under Section 19 read with Section 7(7A) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal is before us in this tax revision case. 7. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “i) Is the Tribunal is right in holding that the work undertook by the petitioner is not liable to tax under section 7(7)? S.T.Rev.No.154 of 2008 3 ii) When the work undertook by the petitioner is covered under section 7(7) whether the Tribunal is right in holding that he is not eligible for compounding under section 7(7)?” 8. We have heard Sri.Santhosh P.Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 9. One and the only question that would arise for our consideration and decision is, whether the construction of Engine Thara and RCC Jetty can be construed as civil work ? 10. Under Section 7(7) of the Act the civil works of construction have been defined to mean construction of buildings, bridges, roads, railway tracks, walls, including sea walls. 11. A Bench of this Court while deciding a more or less similar issue has observed that this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction should not add something into the provision to grant benefit to an assessee. 12. In the instant case, as we have already noticed, the works that was awarded to the contractor was for the construction of Engine Thara and RCC Jetty and the said construction by no stretch of imagination can be brought under the definition of 'civil works' as defined S.T.Rev.No.154 of 2008 4 under Section 7(7) of the Act. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly allowed the Revenue's appeal and thereby has set aside the orders passed by the first appellate authority. In our considered opinion, the orders passed by the appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, this revision need not be entertained by us and accordingly while answering the questions of law framed by the assessee in negative and in favour of the Revenue, we reject this revision petition. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/DK