IFB Industries Limited and Others v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940** **ST.Rev..No. 2 of 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A 22/2011 of KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 11-05-2013** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S.IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED 36/1923, SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, MR.ASHISH SINGH.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) SRI.SANDEEP GOPALAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **SRI V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN SR GP** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2019, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..3/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940** **ST.Rev..No. 3 of 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 23/2011 of KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM DATED 11.05.2013** **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED 36/1923, SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ASHISH SINGH.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.) SRI.SANDEEP GOPALAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2019, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..2/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **3** ## **ORDER** K.Vinod Chandran, J Before noticing the question of law arising in the above case, the facts need to be stated, which are the dates of the various orders passed with respect to the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Both the assessment years have more or less identical dates on which the orders were passed. 2. An assessment was made in both the years that too _ex parte_ , on 30.03.2005, produced as Annexure-A,. An appeal was filed, in which there was an open remand made by order dated 30.11.2005, produced as Annexure-B. The remand was only for reason of the assessment order having been passed _ex parte_ and there was a direction to consider ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **4** the issues afresh after hearing the assessee. The Assessing Officer heard the assessee and passed fresh orders on 27.01.2006 for the year 2001-2002 and 28.01.2006 for the year 2002-2003; which are produced in the respective appeals as Annexure C. There is no controversy till this modified order of assessment. 3. The assessee took up the matter in further appeal, wherein on certain issues, the assessee's appeal was allowed and on the question of production of Form 25A, the issue was remanded. The dispute so to say starts from this order of remand dated 28.04.2006, produced as Annexure D. The State filed an appeal from this order before the Appellate Tribunal, which did not touch upon the issue remanded by the First Appellate Authority. ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **5** The Appellate Tribunal passed an order in the second appeal on 28.02.2007, which is produced as Annexure E. We are now concerned only with the issue of stock transfer as raised in the above appeal on which there was a remand. Among others, there was also an issue of whether a trade discount can be claimed as reduction, which was decided against the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal from the order of the Appellate Tribunal [Annexure E] before the High Court, wherein only one issue was raised, ie. the issue of trade discount. The High Court, by order dated 26.06.2009, found against the assessee in so far as the trade discount was permissible, only when it was shown in the invoices themselves. This judgment came on 26.06.2009. A further appeal was taken to the ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **6** Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the judgment of the High Court was reversed. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reported in _**IFB Industries and Others v. State of Kerala**_ _**and Others [2012 49 VST I (SC)] dated**_ ## _**27.02.2012**_ . 4. In the meanwhile, two orders were passed by the Assessing Officer, from which the present dispute arise. While the appeal on the issue of trade discount was pending before the High Court, the Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the First Appellate Authority (Ann:D) and the Appellate Tribunal (Ann:E) on 04.02.2008, by order produced as Annexure F. The issue of Form 25A and stock transfer were both against the assessee as per the computation directed, respectively by the first Appellate Authority ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **7** and the Appellate Tribunal. 5. Subsequently, when the challenge to the judgment of the High Court was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with respect to the trade discount, the Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the High Court on 10.03.2010; by order produced as Annexure-H. The assessee in the present proceedings filed appeal from Annexure H order dated 10.03.2010. The question of law raised is, whether in an appeal from the order dated 10.03.2010, the assessee could agitate the issues, which were considered by the Assessing Officer on remand made by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal; by order dated 04.02.2008. 6. The assessee relies on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in _**M.Syed Alavi**_ ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **8** _**and Others**_ v. _**State of Kerala [1981 (48) STC**_ _**151]**_ . We have to first consider the issue as agitated and decided by the Full Bench of this Court. There, the assessee was subjected to assessment as an Association of Persons (AOP). The assessee filed first appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging its liability to be assessed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assessing Authority regarding liability to assessment, but remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for reconsidering the quantum of assessment. The order of remand was appealable, but the assessee did not choose to file an appeal from the decision on its liability to be assessed, which was decided against the assessee in first appeal. Later, when the order of remand was given ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **9** effect to and an appeal filed there from, the assessee again agitated the question of its liability under the sales tax enactment. The first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal found that the assessee having not challenged the order of remand, Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied. The issue having been already considered and decided against the assessee, there would be _res judicata_ , insofar as the issue being raised again, held the lower authorities. 7. The Full Bench looked at Section 105 and found that sub-section (2) was introduced later. It was found that sub-section (1) of Section 105 reflected the general law applicable, insofar as a remand order being considered an interim order and any findings therein being susceptible to a challenge, ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **10** when an appeal is filed from the order giving effect to remand. Sub-section(2) of Section 105 having been later introduced into the CPC, the general law applicable insofar as the statutory remedies under the sales tax enactment would not be altered. The Full Bench found that the sales tax enactment did not have a specific prescription as found in sub-section (2) of Section 105 and hence the orders of remand passed under the sales tax enactment, as is the position in general law remained. Since the order of remand was in the nature of an interim order, the findings arrived at therein, could be challenged in an appeal from the order giving effect to the remand. We, respectfully bow to the said proposition as laid down by the Full Bench, but find the same to have absolutely no ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **11** application in the present case. 8. Sri.Kurian, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee would also argue that when a remand order was made by the High Court and when an order is passed giving effect to the order of remand, necessarily, the earlier order passed on 04.02.2008 gets merged with the order passed on 10.03.2010. An appeal could be maintained on all the issues that gets incorporated in the order dated 10.03.2010. 9. The argument of merger of the order of the Assessing Officer dated 04.02.2008 with the order of the Assessing Officer itself, dated 10.03.2010, is only to be stated, to be rejected. The doctrine of merger has application when there are two orders, one by the inferior authority and the other by a ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **12** superior authority, that too only when the subject mater of the two orders are identical. 10. On the question of merger, _**Commissioner of Income Tax**_ v. _**Amritlal Bhogilal and Company [(1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC)]**_ said so:- “There can be no doubt that, if an appeal is provided against an order passed by a tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative decision in law. If the appellate authority modifies or reverses the decision of the tribunal, it is obvious that it is the appellate decision that is effective and can be enforced. In law the position would be just the same even if the appellate decision merely confirms the decision of the tribunal. As a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the tribunal by the appellate authority the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **13** and is operative and capable of enforcement;” _**State of Madras**_ v. _**Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.**_ _**[AIR 1967 SC 681]**_ also held that the application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provisions, conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. _**Kunhaymmed and Others**_ v. _**State of Kerala and Another [(2006)**_ _**SCC 359]**_ held _“the logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that, there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time.(sic)”._ There can be no doctrine of merger applied here, for the simple reason that the orders of the Assessing Officer dated 04.02.2008 and 10.03.2010 are with respect to different ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **14** subject matters. The order of 04.02.2008 gave effect to (i) the first Appellate Authorities order on Form 25A and (ii) the Tribunal's order on stock transfer. The order dated 10.03.2010 gave effect to the judgment of the High Court on trade discount. 11. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Shamsudheen would, specifically point to the orders and argue that there was no open remand made either by the first Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. Specific findings were rendered on the issues raised and computation alone was directed to be redone. The Assessment Order passed on 04.02.2008 gave effect to the appellate orders, which were on proper computation made, as per the orders of the Appellate Authority. It was also argued that, if at all ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **15** any challenge to the issues considered therein; had to be raised in an appeal from the order dated 04.02.2008 itself. No appeal having been filed; by sheer passage of time, the issues decided therein becomes final and are not susceptible to be opened after the period for appeal is over. The subsequent order passed on 10.03.2010 confined itself to the issue of trade discount. The appeal from the order dated 10.03.2010 could only be maintained on the issue of trade discount even going by the cited Full Bench decision. 12. We fully agree with Sri.Shamsudheen, insofar as the issues decided in order dated 04.02.2008 being not susceptible to challenge from an appeal from the order dated 10.03.2010. On the question of Form 25A, we notice from Annexure-D that the issue ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **16** agitated by the assessee was that the assessee being a first seller, Form 25A was not required, to claim liability to tax on 5[th] schedule goods confined to the first point of sale. However, the first Appellate Authority found that the appellant assessee is only eligible for the claim of reduced rate of tax on the sales turn over of first sale of 5[th] schedule items to the extent it is supported by Form 25A. Considering the fact that the assessee had produced Form 25A declarations for the periods 2001-02 and 2002-03, an order of remand was made for verification as to the genuineness and admissibility of such forms produced before the first Appellate Authority. As rightly argued by Sri.Shamsudheen, the issue stands decided by the first Appellate Authority and the remand ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **17** was for the limited purpose of re-computation after verifying the Form 25A declarations, produced by the assessee, before the first Appellate Tribunal. 13. According to Sri. Shamsudheen, when the order of the First Appellate Authority was given effect to by an order dated 04.02.2008, the assessee would have been left only with the remedy of challenging the disallowance if any of the Form 25A declarations made by the A.O. The requirement as such had already been decided by the First Appellate Authority. But going by the Full Bench decision, considering the order of the First Appellate Authority to be a remand, we have to find that, if an appeal is taken from the order giving effect to remand, definitely the assessee could have also challenged the ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **18** issue of whether Form 25A was required for the claim of reduced rate, when the assessee is established to be the first seller. 14. However, the assessee had not filed an appeal from the order dated 04.02.2008. The appeal filed was from an order giving effect to a decision of the High Court on one single issue ie: trade discount. The assessee having not challenged the order dated 04.02.2008, the issues, which were settled by the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 28.04.2006, which was given effect to by order dated 04.02.2008, could not have been agitated in an appeal from the later order, giving effect to the judgment of the High Court on a totally different issue. 15. We here notice that the issue of requirement of Form 25A for the first seller **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **19** to be absolved of the levy at the last point was decided in the negative and in favour of the assessee by _**State of Kerala Vs. Godrej**_ _**Appliances Ltd. [2010] 29 VST 247 (Ker.)**_ on 08.06.2008 and if an appeal from the order dated 04.02.2008 was filed it would definitely have gone in the assesses favour. The assessee having not availed the remedy the issue stands finalised on the expiry of the period for filing appeal. 16. The further question is of stock transfer, on which the Appellate Tribunal had made a remand. We specifically notice that the appeal before the Tribunal was by the State, in which a Cross Objection was filed. Sri.Shamsudheen would argue that the fact that a Cross Objection was filed; which did not raise a challenge of the remanded issue; ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **20** would act against the assessee especially since the Full Bench had noticed that assessee could raise all contentions in an appeal from the order giving effect to the remand, only if no appeal was provided or when an appeal is provided; it has not been availed. We however, are not inclined to accept the said contention, since admittedly in the Cross Objection the assessse did not challenge the order of remand and in any event, that specific issue has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal in Annexure-E order. This would be a situation where there is an appeal provided, which remedy has not been availed; atleast with respect to the remanded issue. 17. Looking at Annexure-E order, we find that the assessee had produced F-Forms for **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **21** the stock transfer carried out. The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could have declined the F-forms for reason of no further evidence having been produced. It is an accepted position that F-form is only one mode of evidence to substantiate a stock transfer and when a suspicion is raised by the Assessing Officer as to the movement of goods, then the assessee would have to produce further evidence to prove such movement from one place to another as has been held in _**Carborundum Universal Ltd.**_ v. _**State of Kerala**_ **[2006 148 STC 339 (Kerala)]** , which was decided on 06.07.2006. Here, we also have to observe that F-forms were not mandatory before 2002 and by an amendment from the year 2002-03 it has been made mandatory. The position with respect to a ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **22** suspicion raised on the movement of goods, however remains the same before and after amendment. After amendment, if there were no F-forms produced; stock transfer could be declined without anything more. Before amendment, even if F-Forms are not produced, the assessee could prove by other evidences that there was, in fact, a stock transfer and movement of goods from one business premises to another. What remained constant is that during the prior period when F-forms were not mandatory and after it was made mandatory, on enquiry, an Assessing Officer could raise a suspicion on the genuineness of the stock transfer claimed, upon which, the assessee was obliged to produce further evidence to substantiate the movement of goods. This was what was found by the Tribunal. ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **23** 18. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had merely declined consideration of the F-forms. It was directed that an enquiry be conducted and if a suspicion is raised, the assessee would have to produce further documents. The order of remand at Annexure-E was again given effect to, by order dated 04.02.2008, wherein the issue of Form 25A was also given effect to. The assessee if had filed an appeal from the order dated 04.02.2008, could have raised all grounds; even those found against the assessee by the Tribunal and first Appellate Authority and their orders of remand; in that appeal. The assessee failed to appeal from the order passed on remand. The appeal was from the subsequent order dated 10.03.2010, which gave effect to the judgment of the High Court. **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **24** 19. In the appeal, from the order dated 10.03.2010; which gave effect to the decision of the High Court, we have already found that the questions decided in the First Appellate Authority's remand and given effect to on 04.02.2008, could not be agitated. Likewise, those issues decided in the order of remand of the Appellate Tribunal, at Annexure-E and given effect to by order dated 04.02.2008, had to be challenged in a properly instituted appeal from the order dated 04.02.2008. The subsequent appeal filed from the order dated 10.03.2010 cannot be sustained. 20. Sri.Kurian, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee has a further contention that there was an open remand made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are not convinced **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **25** that such a remand was made as seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**IFB Industries and Others**_ , the operative portion of which is extracted herein below:- **28.** On the basis of the discussions made above and in the light of the earlier decisions of the Court, we are unable to sustain the orders of the Kerala High Court coming under appeal. The impugned orders in both the appeals are set aside. The cases of the appellants for the respective assessment periods are remitted to the assessing authority with a direction to make assessments and pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment. The assessing authority shall not reject the appellants’ claim for exemption of the amounts of trade discount solely on the ground that the discount amounts were not shown in the sale invoices. 21. It is clear that the direction was to make assessment and pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **26** judgment. It was also directed that there shall be no rejection of the appellant's claim for exemption for trade discount, solely on the ground that the discount amounts were not shown in the sale invoices. The remand applied only to the trade discounts. Despite the High Court judgment having been given effect to by order dated 10.03.2010, necessarily, the Assessing Officer would have to further modify the assessment, insofar as the trade discount is concerned. 22. The two issues, which were remanded by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal were finalised by the order dated 04.02.2008 (Annexure-F), which was not challenged in a statutory appeal. If there was such a challenge made, going by the Full ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** ## **27** Bench decision, the issues decided by the first Appellate Authority with respect to From 25A, could have been agitated before the Tribunal and the issue of stock transfer decided by the Tribunal and remanded for computation, could have been agitated in all its aspects before the High Court. The assessee failed to challenge the order dated 04.02.2008. The issues having been resolved finally and the order having acquired finality by sheer passage of time, an appeal from the order dated 10.03.2010 could not agitate those issues settled by that earlier order dated 04.02.2008. The order dated 04.02.2008 had acquired finality for no appeal having been preferred therefrom. The question of law framed, hence is answered in favour of the revenue. The sales ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **28** tax revisions stand rejected. The parties to suffer their respective costs. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **JUDGE Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE** SB/16/02/2019 **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **29** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.Rev. 2/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.3.2005 FOR THE KGST ASSESSMENT YEAR 200102 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) SPECIAL CIRLCE-11 ERNAKULAM** - **ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.T.A NO. 6805 OF 2005 DATED 30.11.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 111, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM** - **ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.1.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT).** - **ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN STA NO 219 OF 2006 DATED 28.4.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES.** - **ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (TA NO 429 OF 2006 NUMBERED AS CO 67 OF 2006 DATED 28.2.2007 PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL** - **ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 4.2.2008 ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 4.2.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT)** - **ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.6.2009 IN ST REV NO 396 AND 397 OF 2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA** - **ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.3.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT)** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN STA NO 256 OF 2010 DATED 20.9.2010 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES.** **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **30** **ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 5.9.2012 IN TA NO 22 OF 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL** **ANNEXURE K TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.2.2013 IN TA NOS 22/2011 AND 23/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL** **RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL** ## **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A TO JUDGE** **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **31** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.Rev. 3/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.3.2205 FOR THE KGST ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) SPECIAL CIRCLE-11 ERNAKULAM** **ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN STA NO 6531 OF 2005 DATED 30.11.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 111, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM** **ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.1.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT).** - **ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN STA NO 220 OF 2006 DATED 28.4.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIALS TAXES.** - **ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (TA NO 430 OF 2006 NUMBERED AS CO 68 OF 2006 DATED 28.2.2007 PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL** - **ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.2.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT)** - **ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.6.2009 IN ST REV NOS 296 AND 397 OF 2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.3.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT)** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN STA N0 257 OF 2010 DATED 20.9.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES.** - **ANNEXURE J TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 5.9.2012 IN TA NO 23 OF 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL** **32** ## **ST.Rev. 2/2014 ,ST.Rev..3/2014** **ANNEXURE K TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.2.2013 IN TA NOS 22/2011 AND 23/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL** **RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL** **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A TO JUDGE**