IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 253 of 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2003 IN T.A.NO.309/2003 PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE. -------------------------------------------------------- V.SUDARSANAN, HOTEL LAKSHMI BAR, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/REVENUE. --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- S.T.REV. NO. 253 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th March, 2008 O R D E R H.L.DATTU, C.J. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 2. The State Government, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority in S.T.A.No.576 of 2003 dated 15th March, 2003, had filed T.A.No.553 of 2003. The assessee also had called in question the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority before the Tribunal in T.A.No.309 of 2003. 3. The Tribunal, by its common order dated 4th December, 2003, has rejected the assessee's appeal as well as the cross objection. However, has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the State, namely, T.A.No.553 of 2003, was before this Court in S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2004. This Court, by its order dated 29th August, 2006, has rejected the said revision. The orders passed by this Court reads as under: “Since the estimation of turnover and addition sustained by the Tribunal are based on payment of S.T.REV. NO.253 OF 2004 :: 2 :: compounding fee by the assessee and with reference to the previous year's gross profit declared by the assessee, there is no scope for interference with the order of the Tribunal. Tax Revision is therefore dismissed.” 5. The assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.309 of 2003, has filed the present Sales Tax Revision. The questions of law framed by the assessee are as under: “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the estimate sustained by the first appellate authority in respect of IMFL in view of the fact the stock difference noticed was negligible and cannot be avoided in retail sales of small quantity? At any rate is not the addition under IMFL retained excessive? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is not the addition sustained by the first appellate authority unwarranted in respect of the turnover of the cooked foods? Is not the reasoning for the addition in respect of cooked food erroneous? Is not the addition under Soda and soft drinks unwarranted? iii) Whether the rate of tax applied to soda and soft drinks is correct in the light of the relevant entries in the first Schedule to the K.G.S.T.Act?” 6. Since the assessee has failed in his attempt to get relief in S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2004 and since the Tribunal while disposing of the State's appeal and the assessee's appeal had passed a common order dated 4.12.2003, we are of the opinion that the result of the said Sales Tax Revision requires to be applied in the present Revision also. S.T.REV. NO.253 OF 2004 :: 3 :: 7. Accordingly, following the observations made in S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2004, this Sales Tax Revision is also rejected and the questions of law framed by the assessee are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/DK