Prompt India (Now Defunct) vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 314 of 2005()


1. PROMPT INDIA (NOW DEFUNCT)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.H.RAMANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :23/07/2008

 O R D E R
               H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------
                    S.T.Rev.Nos.314 and 315 of 2005
                  ---------------------------------------------
                 Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2008

                                  O R D E R

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

S.T.Rev.No.314 of 2005 pertains to the assessment year

1988-1989.

2. S.T.Rev.No.315 of 2005 pertains to the assessment year

1991-1992.

3. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, by its

common order dated 17-2-2005 has disposed of T.A.Nos.348 and 349 of

1995. Those appeals were filed by the State Government against the

orders passed by the first appellate authority in S.T.A.Nos.799 and 815

of 1994.

4. For the assessment years 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and

1994-1995, the assessee was before this Court in S.T.Rev.Nos.498 of

2004, 499 of 2004 and 500 of 2004. By order dated Ist December 2007,

this Court has disposed of those revision petitions as under:

“i). The first question of law framed by the assessee
is answered against the assessee and in favour of the
revenue. We accord a certificate for appeal to the
Supreme Court against the orders by us as

S.T.Rev.No.314,315/2005 -2-

contemplated under Article 133 read with 134A of
the Constitution of India.

ii). In so far as the second question is concerned, we
decline to answer the question, since it was not urged
and argued before the Tribunal.”

5. The legal issues involved in these revision petitions are

also identical with the legal issues involved in S.T.Rev.Nos.498 of 2004,

499 of 2004 and 500 of 2004. Therefore, following the orders and

directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid revision petitions, these

revision petitions are also disposed of, with the same observations,

conditions, orders and directions.

6. In view of the orders passed in the revision petitions, all

pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE

MS