IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 374 of 2006() ------------------------- TA.320/2005 of APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH II,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) (IN-CHARGE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.TEKCHAND RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S.SURYA MARKETING, MUZHIKULAM, KURUMASSERY P.O., PIN – 683 579. BY ADVS. MR.VIJAYAN. K.U., MR.K.N.SREEKUMARAN. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009 ALONG WITH STRV.NO.367 OF 2006 AND STRV.NO.375 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ====================================== S.T.Rev.Nos.374/2006, 367/2006 and 375 of 2006 ====================================== Dated this the 8th day of January 2009 JUDGMENT The issue raised in the revisions filed by the State is whether the biscuits sold by the respondents was taxable during the relevant years 2001-2002 to 2003-2004, as biscuits sold under the brand name. 2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal has noticed that the names used by the respondents were in fact not brand names. On the other hand, in some cases, company's name itself is the name of the biscuit. Further, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer considered the assessments in comparable cases and found that only biscuits sold under genuine brand names or brands were assessed at 12%. Therefore the excess rate collected (12%) over 8% was forfeited to the Government. The amendment was introduced defining brand name covering use of wide range of names, trade marks etc. with effect from 2004-2005. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for these years. The S.T.Revisions are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/