IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 ST.Rev.No.37 of 2005 --------------------------------------- TA.No.330/2001 OF SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ORDER DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 2002). .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- SRI.N.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, HOTEL HIGH PALACE, NEAR MUNCIPAL BUS STAND, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev. No.37 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. The Revenue is before us in this tax revision case, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.330 of 2001 dated 31st October, 2002. (2). The assessment year in question is 1998-1999. (3). The Tribunal by its common order in T.A.No.22 and 330 of 2001 had rejected the State's appeal for the assessment years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. (4). The Revenue being aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.22 of 2001 had filed S.T.Rev.No.14/2005. This Court by its order dated 30th January, 2008 has rejected the revision petition on the ground that the question of law which is purportedly raised by the Revenue is essentially a question of fact and therefore this Court need not have to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to revive the order passed by the Tribunal. (5). The common order passed by the Tribunal was questioned by the Revenue in two revision petitions. Since we have already rejected the revision filed against order in T.A.No.22/2001 dated 31st October, 2002 on the ground that no question of law would arise, this revision petition also should meet the same fate. Accordingly, we hold in this revision petition also that no question of law would arise for our consideration and decision. S.T.Rev.No.37/2005 -2- Therefore, the revision petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE MS