IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 261 of 2006()
1. SRI. JAYABALAN K.P., PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN
For Respondent :GOVENMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :28/07/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ST(RV)Nos. 261 and 263 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of July 2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
In these two revision petitions we are concerned with assessment
years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
2. The assessee had claimed reduced rate of tax at 3% for the sales
turnover of tread rubber. The assessing authority while completing the
assessments for the assessment years in question had rejected the claim of
the assessee by rejecting the annual returns filed by the assessee and
thereafter had proceeded to pass best judgment assessment.
3. Before the first appellate authority, the petitioner’s contention
was that he has purchased the industrial unit which was paying tax at the
reduced rate of tax on sales turnover of Tread Rubber in view of SRO
No.1090/1999, and therefore, entitled for concessional rate of tax..
4. The first appellate authority after accepting the claim of the
assessee has allowed the appeals and further has directed the assessing
authority to grant concessional rate of tax at 3% in respect of the sales
turnover of tread rubber. Subsequently, the first appellate authority has
modified its order by restricting the claim of the assessee only after
29.04.2000.
ST(RV) Nos.261 & 263/2006
2
5. The appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the first
appellate authority is rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal at paragraph 4 of its
order has observed as under:
“4. We have considered the contentions raised
by both sides. The only question to be decided is that
whether the appellant is eligible for concessional rate
prior to 29.04.2000. The certificate issued by the
General manager, District Industries Centre, Kannur
revealed that the application itself has filed on
24.04.2000 and the Certificate was granted on
29.04.2000. As this be the position we find that the
contentions raised by the appellant is devoid of any
merit. Hence dismissed.”
6. Petitioner’s claim before the assessing authority was that it is an SSI
Unit and therefore entitled for concessional rate of tax on the turnover of tread
rubber. The reliance was squarely on the notification issued by the State
Government in SRO No.1090/1999. In order to get the benefit under that
notification, the industrial unit requires to be registered as SSI Unit. For the first
time the petitioner’s industrial unit got itself registered only with effect from
29.04.2000. Keeping that date in view, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the
ST(RV) Nos.261 & 263/2006
3
petitioner is in fact entitled for the reduced rate of tax/concessional rate of tax for
the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 only with effect from 29.4.2000.
The conclusions reached by the Tribunal is neither erroneous nor illegal, since they
have strictly applied the conditions prescribed in the notification SRO No.1090/99.
7. Before the appellate authority it was not the case of the assessee that by
virtue of the orders passed by the State Government, dated 31.08.88, it is entitled
for a concessional/reduced rate of tax at 3%. What was not urged or argued before
the authorities concerned, can not be argued for the first time before this Court.
8. In view of the above discussion, while rejecting the revision petitions,
we confirm the orders passed by the Tribunal.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
ttb/dk