IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 114 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/06/2008 IN TA.138/2007 of S.T.A.T., ADDL.BENCH-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFFIQ RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- M/S.KITTICKAL AGENCIES, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR RESPTS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR RESPTS. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 115 TO 117 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T. Rev. Nos. 114 to 117 OF 2009 & C.M.Appln. 322/09 in ST Rev. 114/09, C.M.Appln. 324/09 in ST Rev.115/09, C.M.Appln. 325/09 in ST Rev. 116/09, & C.M.Appln. 326/09 in ST Rev. 117/09 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Sales Tax Revisions are filed with inordinate delay of 204 days. We have heard Special Government Pleader appearing for the State and senior counsel Dr. K.B.Mohamedkutty appearing for the respondent. 2. After hearing both sides we do not think there is any scope for interference with the orders of the Tribunal because Tribunal ultimately sustained addition of actual suppression detected. Even though Special Government Pleader referred to Full Bench decision of this Court in ABOOBACKER V. STATE OF KERALA, 17 KTR 88 (FB), wherein it is stated that once accounts are rejected, the next step is to estimate turnover on a reasonable basis, and addition of actual suppression noticed is not the recourse to be adopted. However, we do not think the above decision applies here because in this case, the respondent at 2 a later stage denied the transactions which required the officer to follow the procedure under Section 30B(4) of the Act. The Tribunal though did not accept the objection of the respondent accepted their claim that addition should be limited to the actual suppression noticed. Revisions are filed mainly because the Tribunal's order is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. We make it clear that the order of the Tribunal need not be treated as a precedent binding on the State in assessee's own case for subsequent years. Senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that liability is also settled under Amnesty Scheme and department has chosen to file Revisions with inordinate delay of 204 days and grounds raised in support of the Delay Condonation Petition are also not tenable. With the above observation we reject the Delay Condonation petition as well as Revisions. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. 3 kk