IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 271 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.337/2008 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT:REVENUE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ENRAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- SRI.ABHILASH T.MATHEW, ROOM NO.VI/58, CATHOLIC TRUST BUILDING, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-4. BY ADVS.SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.SANTHOSH.P.ABRAHAM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2010 ALONG WITH STRV NO. 272 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ S.T.REV.NOS: 271 & 272 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the two revision cases filed by the State is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessments confirmed in first appeals as time barred. 2. During hearing Govt. Pleader brought to our notice various amendments introduced revalidating assessments and extending time for completion of pending assessments by various Finance Acts. Section 3 of the Finance Act 2000 provides for revalidation of certain assessments. Similarly, amendments are seen introduced in Section 17 by Finance Act 2006 and Finance Act 2007. Even though respondents' counsel submitted that these amendments have no application we feel the matter requires to be considered by the Tribunal first because we cannot in a revision consider issues raised for the first time. Limitation also has to be considered with reference to facts of the case and therefore, we feel Tribunal should reconsider the matter with reference to the amendments above stated as well. Accordingly we allow the revision by setting aside S.T.Rev.NOS 271 & 272/2009 2 the orders of the Tribunal and restore the appeals back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and decide the appeals afresh after giving a hearing to both sides. The Tribunal should go into all questions including limitation in the light of the amendments cited above. Since the Tribunal has decided the limitation question in favour of the assessee they have not considered the other issues raised. However, after remand we direct the Tribunal to decide all questions raised so that further remand could be avoided by this Court in another round of revision. Tribunal is directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj S.T.Rev.NOS 271 & 272/2009 3