IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
TRC No. 133 of 2001()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PARK HOTEL, KOZHENCHERRY.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :18/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
TAX REVISION CASE No. 133 OF 2001
...................................................................................
Dated this the 18th June, 2007
O R D E R
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:
1. Delay in filing the Revision Case has already been condoned.
2. Admit.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. This Revision Case is preferred by the Revenue against the
orders passed by the Kerala General Salex Tax Appellate Tribunal in
T.A.No. 572 of 1995 dated 23rd June, 2000 for the assessment year 1992-
93.
5. The Revenue has raised the following questions of law for our
consideration and decision. They are as under:
“a) Were not the First Appellate Authority as well
as the Tribunal in error in holding that the turnover
relating to the empty bottles is not taxable?
b) Is the Tribunal correct in law in holding that
bottles have already suffered tax with its contents
TAX REVISION CASE No. 133 OF 2001
2
and therefore turnover of bottles is not exigible to
tax?
c) Is not the conclusion that empty bottles are not
exigible to tax against the ratio settled in (2000 ) 8
KTR 480? ”
6. At the time of hearing of this Revision Case, Shri V.V. Asokan,
learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, brings to our notice that
the Revenue, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the
Tribunal in T.A.No. 573 of 1995 dated 23rd June, 2000, was before this
Court in TRC. 200 of 2001 and that this Court has allowed the Revision
Petition and has answered the questions of law framed by the Revenue in
favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by its order dated 11th
April, 2003. Therefore, he submits that this court need to follow the
aforesaid order and answer the questions of law raised in this Revision
Case in favour of the Revenue.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee would submit that
the Division Bench of this court while disposing of TRC No.200 of 2001
had not noticed the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court.
8. In the present case, it so happens that, the common order has been
passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.Nos. 572 and 573 of
TAX REVISION CASE No. 133 OF 2001
3
1995 by order dated 23rd June, 2000. The Revenue had carried both the
matters by way of Revision Cases before this Court. It so happened that
this Court had considered the Revision case filed against the orders passed
in T.A. No. 573 of 1995 and had answered the questions of law framed by
the Revenue in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
9. Since the order passed by the Tribunal was a common order and
since the Revenue has filed Revision Cases in both the appeals, in our
opinion, the same treatment requires to be given to the present Revision
Case also. Therefore , we do not accept the submission made by the
learned counsel for the assessee.
10. The Division Bench of this court, after a detailed consideration
of the rival contentions canvassed by the parties to the lis, has stated as
under:
“We have perused the said judgment. We find that
the Division Bench of this Court after considering the
provisions regarding the levy of tax held that though
IMFL had suffered tax as contained in the
containers, there is no distinct sale of liquor and
bottles separately and as such levy of tax on the
bottles is in order. In the light of the decision of this
Court as above, we are of the view that the tribunal
TAX REVISION CASE No. 133 OF 2001
4
erred in holding that empty bottles cannot be
subjected to tax since the same had already suffered
tax with its contents. We accordingly set aside both
the appellate orders on this point and hold that levy
of tax on empty bottles made by the assessing
authority is in order.”
11. We agree with the observations made by this Court in the
aforesaid Tax Revision Case.
12. Respectfully following the observations made in the aforesaid
decision, this Revision Case is also disposed of. The questions of law
framed by the Revenue is answered in favour of the Revenue and against
the assessee.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk/DK.
TAX REVISION CASE No. 133 OF 2001
5
H. L. DATTU, C.J. &
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
……………………………………………….
T.R.C. No. 133 OF 2001
……………………………………………….
Dated this the 18th June, 2007
O R D E R