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 WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 345 of 2005 ------------------------- TA.1039/2003 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S. WIPRO LIMITED, (FORMERLY WIPRO INFOTECH LIMITED), A & P ARCADE SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. REPRESENTED BY ITS SR.EXECUTIVE, TAXATION, MR. RAMAN VENKAT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.MITHUN MARKOS RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev. No. 345 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July 2008 O R D E R H.L.DATTU, C.J. A dealer, who is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in TA No.1039/03 dated 27.01.2005 for the assessment year 1998-99, has filed this revision petition. 2. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Annual Maintenance contracts in question are works contracts falling within the scope of sale of goods assessable under the KGST Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Annual Maintenance Contracts in question will fall within Entry 22 of Schedule IV of the KGST Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was right in confirming the estimation of Rs.46,95,524/- representing 5% of the total turnover returned by the Petitioner? ST.Rev.No.345/2005 2 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence before the Appellate Tribunal to justify its finding that the addition of Rs.46,95,524/- representing 5% of the total turnover returned by the Petitioner is not unreasonable? 3. The questions of law raised by the assessee, in our view, is no more debatable, in view of the orders passed by this court in M/s.Wipro Limited v. State of Kerala in S.T.Rev. Nos.24/04, 251/04, 252/04, 267/04 and 278/04 dated 13th November, 2007. 4. This Court, while disposing of the aforesaid revision petitions, had remanded the matter to the assessing authority to complete the assessment for the assessment years in question in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. 5. Following the observations made in the aforesaid decision, this revision petition is also disposed of. The orders passed by the assessing authority confirmed by the first Appellate Authority and Tribunal for the assessment year 1997-98 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, ST.Rev.No.345/2005 3 keeping in view the observations made by this Court in ST.Rev.No.24 of 2004 and connected matters. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE ttb/dk.