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 THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 1069 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN STRV.358/2008 Dated 12/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): / REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------- P.VINOD, CHANDNI ENTERPRISES, SAKTHI COMPLEX, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY DR.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, ALONG WITH R.P.Nos.1070/2010 in ST.Rev.No.329/2008 & 1072/2010 in ST.Rev.No.332/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.P.Nos.1069 of 2010 in ST.Rev.No.358 of 2008, 1070 of 2010 in ST.Rev.No.329 of 2008 & 1072 of 2010 in ST.Rev.No.332 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2011 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the State. 2. Question decided in the S.T.Revision cases filed by the State pertained to disallowance of chicken mortality claim. The Tribunal without any basis, allowed mortality at 26% of the turnover. If the Tribunal's order was to be upheld, then we had to conclude that chicken of the value of Rs.10 crores perished or died. The assessees had no evidence to show death of birds. We, therefore, allowed the revision cases filed by the State reversing the orders of the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioners has now relied on the order in R.P.No.924/2010, wherein this Court allowed 2% of the turnover towards mortality. Learned counsel has also pointed out that even the Government has allowed 1% towards mortality. In the judgment we have taken note of the fact that live chicken is transported in the night to avoid death. However, possibility of R.P.Nos.1069/2010 in ST.Rev.No.358/ 2008, 1070/2010 in ST.Rev.No.329/2008 & 1072/2010 in ST.Rev.No.332/2008 -2- death of a few birds in any case cannot be overruled. Since the Government has also granted 1% towards loss, we feel review petitioners can be granted partial relief. Accordingly, we allow the review petitions modifying the judgment granting reduction of 1% of the turnover towards estimated loss on account of death of birds. However, the assessees will be given the above relief on payment of the balance tax and interest excluding the relief above granted, within one month from today. If payment is not made as above, Review Petitions will be treated as dismissed. We also make it clear that this order should not be taken as precedent because when there is no turnover on sale of carcass is accounted, there is no scope for deduction from sales turnover of chicken. These review petitions are allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) jg