O.T.Rev.3/2013 & O.T.Rev.4/2013, High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 O.T.Rev.No.3 of 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.38/2011 DATED 27.08.2012 IN T.A.(VAT) NO.3/2010 & 234/2010 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07]** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:** **STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ.** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:** **SMT.P.P.ALPHONSA, PROPRIETRIX, JOSCO FASHION JEWELLERS, KOTTAYAM, PIN:686 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMT. G.MINI(1748)** **THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2018, ALONG WITH O.T.Rev.4/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 2 -** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **OT.Rev.No.4 of 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.39/2011 DATED 27.08.2012 IN T.A.(VAT) NO.4/2010 & 235/2010 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07]** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:** **STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ.** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:** **SRI.P.A.JOSE, PROPRIETOR, JOSCO FASHION JEWELLERS, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMT. G.MINI(1748)** **THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2018, ALONG WITH O.T.Rev.3/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 3 -** ## **ORDER** ## **[ O.T.Rev.3/2013, O.T.Rev.4/2013 ]** ## **Vinod Chandran,J.** **Before we look at the questions of law, we have to notice the facts. The assessment year, which is the subject matter of these revisions, is 2006-07; in which year a compounding scheme was introduced first under the Value Added Tax regime. The Kerala Finance Bill, 2006 {Bill No. 355}[for brevity Bill-I] was introduced with a provision for compounding. Subsequently when the Government changed, another Bill was introduced as the Kerala Finance Bill, 2006 on 29.06.2006 [for brevity Bill-II]. A different provision for compounding was proposed in that Bill, which also stood drastically altered when the Kerala Finance Act, 2006 was enacted. The assessee is a jeweller and has more than one branches and the provision we are concerned with is that applicable for jewellery's.** **2. The assessee filed an application for compounding in April, 2006, obviously in tune with Bill-I. However, no action was taken on the said application. Subsequently when the Act came into force, the Assessing Officer [for brevity “AO”] passed Annexure-A order, produced in both the revisions, permitting payment of tax at the compounded rate and also computing the tax payable. While computing the tax** **- 4 -** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** **payable, the AO took note of the provisions which provided for compounding, at the rate of 200% of the highest tax payable by the assessee as conceded in the return or accounts either under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity “KVAT Act”] or Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for brevity “KGST Act”]; for a period of 12 months during any of the three consecutive preceding years. The AO also took note of Explanation II, which mandated that, for the purpose of compounding, each branch shall be treated as an independent place of business for the purpose of calculating the tax payable ie: the compounded tax payable.** **3. Both the assessees had a principal place of business-Head Office and branches. Both also started one branch in the subject year. The AO excluded that and computed the tax payable for the other branches and the Head Office, as provided in the provision under Section 8(f)(i). While so computing the tax, the AO looked at the tax paid in the preceding three years separately by the Head Office and the branches. The AO in computing the tax of each branch and the H.O, looked at the maximum tax as per the accounts, for each of such jewellery's and directed payment of 200% of that component of each jewellery [meaning the different branches and H.O.].** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 5 -** **4. For more clarity, we will look at Annexure-A in O.T.Rev.No.4 of 2013. For computing 200%, the tax paid for each of the jewellery was noticed. For the H.O the tax paid for the year 2004-05, was highest. For the branches at Thrissur, K-Bazar at Kottayam and Palakkad, tax for the year 2005-06 was highest in each of these jewellery's. For the branches at Pathanamthitta, RG Complex at Kottayam, the tax for the year 2004-05 was the highest. The tax paid for each of the three consecutive years, in the first two years were under the KGST Act and the last year under the KVAT Act. The assessee filed an appeal from the assessment order.** **5. The main contention raised in the first appeal was that the total tax as per the return or accounts of a particular year has to be taken without any segregation of the Head Office and branches. On a compounding application being filed, it was the assessee's contention that 200% has to be taken of the highest tax, as per the return or accounts, paid by the assessee in either of the said three years. The first appellate authority remanded the matter finding that there should be a reconsideration by the AO based on Circular No.42/2006. The first appellate authority by Annexure-N order also found that as per Circular** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013 - 6 -** **No.42/2006 there is an instruction that in the event of a revision of tax liability in pursuance of any best judgment assessment or on account of any orders of an appellate authority, the tax payable shall be the tax finally arrived at by such orders. The first appellate authority, however, found that the tax for each year has to be looked at, based on what has been conceded by him in the return or accounts and not on the assessed tax. The AO was directed to re-compute the compounded tax for the year 2006-07. The contention of the assessee with respect to no segregation of Head Office and branch offices was possible, was not accepted.** **6. Appeals were filed by the Revenue as also the assessee from the order of the first appellate authority. Obviously the appeal of the Revenue was on the question of whether the tax payable should be that conceded or that which is finally assessed. The assessee in their appeal sought for finding highest tax conceded in the return or accounts based on the consolidated return of the Head Office and branches without any segregation. The Tribunal by Annexure-D order, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for consideration, keeping all the issues open. It is submitted by the learned** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 7 -** **Counsel for the respondent-assessee that when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the AO had passed an order on remand dated 06.08.2009. However later, when the Tribunal passed Annexure-D dated 20.07.2010, the AO took up the assessment again, finding that the order dated 06.08.2009 is not properly passed. This was on the premise that earlier the Commissioner had directed higher tax to be determined on the basis of what is conceded in the returns or accounts and not what was assessed. When the Tribunal left open all contentions and made an open remand, there was scope for a further assessment to be made, allegedly in accordance with the provisions and Circular No.42/2006.** **7. The assessee then filed a rectification petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rectified the earlier order passed and based on the decision in** _**State of Kerala & Others**_ **v.** _**Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. & Another**_ **[** _**(2018) 13 VST 1**_ **] found that Circular No.42/2006 dated 27.11.2006 regulates the issue and, hence, it was directed that the assessment would be carried out in accordance with the said Circular. The Tribunal, in fact, found favour with the assessment carried out on 06.08.2009. The State is in revision before us.** **8. In the context of the arguments addressed before us, as also looking at the specific issue which arises in the** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 8 -** ## **year as to the provision for compounding, we frame the** ## **following questions of law:** - **(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having found that computation of compounded tax, on the basis of the highest tax conceded in the returns or accounts in the three consecutive preceding years, should be on a consolidated basis without segregation of the Head Office and branches?** - **(ii) Whether the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were correct in having found that the highest tax payable in the three preceding years should be that conceded in the returns or accounts and not which is assessed or revised in appeal?** **In the course of arguments, we deem it fit to frame the following questions of law also, which arise on an interpretation of the provision for compounding, as also considering the terms of the Circulars issued and the observations made on these aspects by the appellate authorities:** - **(iii) Whether the purchase tax component under Section 5A of the KGST Act would be included in the tax conceded in the accounts or returns of the three preceding years?** - **(iv) Whether the purchase tax component under Section 5D of the KGST Act would be included in the tax conceded in the accounts or returns of the three preceding years?** **- 9 -** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** **9. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the compounding provision brooks no anomaly and it is very clear that the highest tax payable for each of the three preceding years has to be separately taken for the branches for purposes of determination of the compounding tax payable at 200% for each particular branch in the assessment year 2006-07. It is also contended that the words employed being 'tax payable for three preceding years', necessarily the component of tax under Section 5 and Section 5A as also Section 5D has to be included in arriving at the highest tax payable for each year. As far as the KVAT period is concerned, i.e., of 2005-06, the Circular exempts Section 6(2) tax paid and hence, the same shall not be added for computation of compounded tax. It is also argued that what has to be accepted is the tax assessed eventually or enhanced in appeal and not that conceded in the return or account. The subsequent Circular No.38/2008 though excludes computation of purchase tax for determining the highest tax for the three preceding years, the provision in the statute does not call for such exclusion.** **10. The learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee would, however, contend that there were no separate returns filed for the branches or the Head Office in the preceding** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 10 -** **three years and the intention behind Section 8(f)(i) is to have a determination of the consolidated tax payable in each of the three preceding years. The compounded tax at 200% has to be on the highest tax payable in either of the three years without any segregation of that conceded by the branches in their accounts. For the purpose of excluding the additional sales tax under Section 5D of the KGST Act, the learned Counsel would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Bhima Jewellery**_ **v.** _**Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.)**_ **[** _**(2014) 16 SCC 402**_ **]. It is also argued that when purchase tax has been specifically excluded by the Circular, the Department cannot take a different stand and the same has to be excluded even in the KGST period. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in O.T.Rev.No.18 of 2009 dated 24.01.2011 [** _**State of Kerala**_ **v.** _**M/s.Malabar Ornaments (P) Ltd.**_ **] is relied on to contend that the highest tax has to be taken as conceded in the return or accounts, which is the specific words employed in sub-clause (i) of Section 8(f).** **11. The Kerala Finance Act, 2006 brought in the following provision as applicable to jewellery:** **Sec.8(f)(i), (ii), (iii) & (iv)** - **“** (f)(i) **any dealers in ornaments or wares or articles of gold, silver or platinum group metals may at his option, instead of paying tax in respect of such goods in accordance with the provisions of section** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 11 -** **6, pay tax at 200 per cent of the highest tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts, either under this Act or under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), for a period of twelve months during any of the three consecutive years preceding that to which such option relates.** - **(ii) A dealer who is not eligible for option under sub-clause (i) may at his option, instead of paying tax in accordance with the provisions of section 6, pay tax at four hundred per cent of the tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts, or tax paid by him under this Act, whichever is higher, for the previous year.** _**Explanation I**_ **: Where during any such preceding year the dealer had not transacted business for any period in that financial year, the tax payable for the twelve months shall be calculated proportionately on the basis of the tax payable for the period during which such dealer had transacted business.** _**Explanation II**_ **: A branch shall be treated as an independent place of business for the purpose of calculating the tax under this section.** - **(iii) Where a dealer who has opted to pay tax under clause (i) or (ii), had opened any new branch subsequent to 31st day of March, 2005, then the additional compounded tax payable with respect to any such branch shall be the average of the tax paid or payable by him in respect his principal place of business and all branches, as if such new branch had not been opened:** **Provided no additional tax is payable by a dealer covered by clause (ii) for the new branches opened during the year 2005-06.** - **(iv) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere where a dealer commences business during the period from 1st day of April, 2006 to 30th day of September, 2006 may at his option, instead of paying tax in respect of such goods in accordance with the provisions of section 6, pay tax at compounded rate** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 12 -** **per month from the commencement of the business at one hundred and fifty per cent of the average monthly tax paid or payable from the commencement of business to 30th day of September, 2006 under this Act :** **Provided further that where a dealer had paid tax under clause (f) and opts for payment of tax under the clause for the succeeding year, the compounded tax payable for the succeeding year to which such option relates shall be at one hundred and fifteen per cent of the tax paid under this clause or tax payable as per returns or accounts whichever is higher for the preceding year:** **Provided also that a dealer who opts for payment of tax under this clause may collect tax on the sales at the rate not exceeding the rate prescribed for the commodity under the Act, but where the tax so collected during the year is in excess of the compounded tax payable for the year under this clause, the tax collected in excess of the compounded tax shall be paid over to Government in addition to the compounded tax.”.** ## **12. Circular No.42/2006 was issued in the course of** **the assessment year for better clarity, which is as below:** ## **“CIRCULAR No.42/2006** **Sub: Kerala Finance Act, 2006 - Amendments under KVAT Act, 2003 payment of tax at compounded rate- Dealers in jewellery - instructions - issued - reg.** **--------** **As per Kerala Finance Act, 2006 certain amendments were made in section 8 of the KVAT Act, 2003 providing for payment of tax at compounded rate by dealers in ornaments or wares or articles of good, silver or platinum group of metals. In this connection the following instructions are issued.** **1. Compounding is an option to be exercised on an yearly basis. So the effective date of operation of this option will be from 1[st] April, 2006.** ## **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 13 -** **2. Dealers who had commenced business after 30.09.2006 will not be eligible to pay tax at compounded rate for the year 2006-07.** **3. In the case of jewellery, all dealers in ornaments or wares or articles of gold, silver or platinum group of metals who have dealings in items covered under serial number 51A of the Third Schedule and under serial numbers (1), (3), (4) and (5) of Second Schedule are eligible for compounding under section 8(f) of the KVAT Act.** **4. The 'tax payable' in the relevant years to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the compounded tax liability will be the total of the tax under section 5(1) and 5A of KGST Act, 1963 for the periods prior to 1.4.2005. For the subsequent periods it will be the total of the net tax payable and purchase tax u/s.6(2) under KVAT Act, 2003. In order to arrive at the compounded tax liability of dealers in jewellery u/s.7 of the KGST Act, 1963 the tax liability u/s.5A of the said Act was also considered; the same yardstick is adopted for fixing the tax liability u/s.8(f) of KVAT Act, 2003.** **5. The compounded tax to be paid by such dealers for 2006-07 will be calculated as follows:** - **(i) At 200% of the highest tax payable for a period of twelve months during any of the years 2003-04, 2004-05 or 2005-06.** - **(ii) At 400% of the tax payable or paid for the year 2005-06 in the case of dealers who do not qualify for compounding as per sub-clause (i) of clause (f) of section 8.** - **(iii) In the case of a dealer commencing business during the period from 1.4.2006 to 30.9.2006, the compounded tax per month shall be at 150% of the average monthly tax paid or payable from the commencement of business till 30.9.2006.** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 14 -** - **(iv) In the case of a “branch” opened by a dealer after 31.3.2005, who has opted to pay tax as in item (i) and (ii) above, the tax payable for the new branch will be worked out as in sub-clause (I) and (ii) based on the figures used for computing the tax liability, taking the average of the tax paid or payable for the principal place of business and other branches, as if the new branch had not been opened.** **6. Branches are treated as independent units for the purpose of compounding. So if need be, dealers are at liberty to opt out of compounding in respect of any branch and compounded for the rest.** **7. In the event of a revision of tax liability in pursuance to any best judgment assessment or on account of any orders of an appellate authority, the tax payable shall be the tax finally arrived at by such orders.** **8. No purchase tax under section 6(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003 shall be additionally payable by any dealer opting for compounding under the section 8(f) of the said Act in the year for which he compounds.** **9. Dealers who have no output tax liability during the year 2005-06 will not be eligible for compounding under the said section.** **10. In respect of dealers who had opted for compounding under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, tax payable for the purpose of compounding under Kerala Value Added Tax Act will be the compounded tax fixed or the actual tax collected, whichever is higher in respect of the respective year.** **11. In respect of the dealers opting for compounding during 2006-07, the tax paid during the year shall be adjusted against the compounded tax liability fixed under section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.** ## **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013 - 15 -** **12. The last date for filing application for compounding for the year 2006-07 will be 30[th] of November, 2006.** **13. No specific forms shall be insisted upon for filing application for compounding for this year, so dealers may apply for compounding this year on their letter head.** **All officers are directed to see that the above instructions are strictly complied with.** ## **COMMISSIONER”.** **13. Looking at the provision at Section 8(f)(i), as we noticed, it speaks of the highest tax payable by the assessee in the earlier three years either under the KGST Act or KVAT Act to be taken as the basis for determining the compounded tax payable. Explanation II, however, makes it very clear that a branch has to be treated as an independent place of business for the purpose of computing the tax payable as compounded tax. Sub-clause (iii) is with respect to a branch opened in the subject year, wherein there is prescribed an average of the tax paid or payable by the dealer, in respect of the principal place of business and all branches. Hence, the intention of the legislature is clear in the said year and the tax conceded in the accounts of each of the branch and the Head Office had to be specifically taken for determining the compounded tax payable at 200% as payable for each of such distinct business place.** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013 - 16 -** **14. Circular No.42/2006 also is in tandem with the provision. Based on the time in which the new branch was opened, there is a further provision made under sub-clause (iv) of Section 8(f). All these would together indicate that the specific intention of the legislature was to provide for compounded tax, taking the separate tax paid by each of the branches and computing the compounded tax for that particular branch on the basis of the highest tax conceded by it in the returns or accounts in the last three preceding years. We, hence, answer question No.(i) against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.** **15. The next question is whether the computation has to be made on the basis of the tax conceded in the returns or accounts or that determined in assessment. The words employed in the provision being very clear, we are in perfect agreement with the judgment of the other Division Bench in** _**M/s.Malabar Ornaments (P) Ltd**_ **. We, hence, answer question No. (ii) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.** **16. On the question of non-inclusion of purchase tax under Section 5A and additional sales tax under Section5D, of the KGST regime, we are of the opinion that the compounding provision having spoken of the highest tax payable, does not draw a distinction between purchase tax or additional sales** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013 - 17 -** **tax. We also notice, as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, that there is no exclusion to the purchase tax under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act in the provision as such. However, the later Circular having provided for such exclusion, relying on** _**Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. & Another**_ **, it has to be held to be binding on the Department and the departmental officers cannot take a different stance. In such circumstances, with respect to inclusion of purchase tax, we find the same is also includable for determining the highest tax payable that is conceded in the accounts or returns in the years in which the KGST Act was applicable, but not includable in the VAT period, i.e., 2005-06. We answer question No.(iii) partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.** **17. Question No.(iv) with respect to additional sales tax also follows the reasoning we have on purchase tax. We have looked at** _**Bhima Jewellery**_ **and found the dictum to be applicable only partly. Therein, the compounding provision for the year 2001-02 came up for consideration. The assessee had filed an application for compounding under the KGST Act and the same was allowed. It was subsequently in the course of the assessment year that Section 5D was brought in the statute book, increasing the tax payable under Section 5 and** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013 - 18 -** **Section 5A by a percentage. The AOs directed the dealers who applied under the compounding provision, to pay the additional levy under Section 5D. This Court found the levy to be permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, reversed the judgment of the Division Bench and found that Section 5D specifically speaks of an additional tax to be levied and collected by the Revenue from a dealer who is liable to pay tax under Section 5 and 5A of the KGST Act at a particular rate. The dealers who were paying tax under the compounding scheme were not paying tax under Section 5 and 5A and, hence, could not be directed to pay additional tax, was the finding.** **18. In such circumstances, if the assessees herein were regularly assessed under Section 5 & 5A and paid the additional sales tax under Section 5D for any of the years under the KGST regime, then the same would also be includable for determining the highest tax payable in the preceding three years. However, in the case of the assessees having opted for compounding the tax payable in either of the years under the KGST Act, even if there was additional sales tax levied and paid on the basis of the legal position as it existed then by reason of the judgment of the High Court, the same would not be includable for determining the highest tax** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 19 -** **payable for reason of the Supreme Court in** _**Bhima Jewellery**_ **having categorically found that there should be no additional sales tax on the compounded tax payable. If either of the assessees had in either of the years, paid tax in accordance with Sections 5 and 5A, then alone the additional sales tax payable would be included for determining the highest tax payable. Question No.(iv), hence, is answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.** **19. In the above circumstances, we modify the order of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority to the effect of the following directions: In computing the compounded tax payable, the Head Office and each branches would be considered independently and highest tax payable would be taken separately as conceded in the returns or accounts. The tax assessed or modified in appeal cannot be the basis of taking the highest tax payable in either of the three preceding years. As to the purchase tax being included, the same can be included only in the KGST period and not KVAT period. With respect to additional sales tax, as we observed, the additional sales tax would be includable only when the assessee under the KGST Act was paying tax in accordance with Section 5 and Section 5A. If the assessee, for any of the years had paid tax at the compounded rate, even if there was** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013 - 20 -** **a determination of and payment by the assessee of additional sales tax under Section 5D, the same would be excluded for determining the tax payable for that year as conceded in the returns or accounts.** **20. The AO is directed to re-do the assessment in accordance with the directions as above. It is made clear that if either of the assessees, had applied for compounding in the subsequent years and the basis is dependent on the tax paid in 2006-07, necessarily any cascading effect, either in favour of the Revenue or in favour of the assessee, would be given full effect.** **The tax revisions are disposed of as indicated above. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs in these revisions.** **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE** **Vku/-** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 21 -** ## **APPENDIX OF O.T.Rev.NO.3/2013** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.01.2007 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM.** **ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.02.2009 OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM.** **ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE VAT TRIBUNAL DATED 20.07.10 IN TA (VAT) NO.3/2010 AND 234/2010.** **ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.08.2012 IN RP NO.38/2011 & 39/11 IN TA (VAT) NO.3/2010 & 234/2010 OF KVAT AT ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE - I A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2005 IN WP(C) NO.8601 OF 2005. ANNEXURE - II A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2009 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM.** **ANNEXURE - III A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32050207484/06-07 DATED 06.08.2009 OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, KVAT (SPECIAL CIRCLE), KOTTAYAM.** **ANNEXURE -IV A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.8357 OF 2004.** **O.T.Rev.3 & 4 of 2013** ## **- 22 -** ## **APPENDIX OF O.T.Rev 4/2013** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12/02/2007 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM.** **ANNEXURE-B A TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16/02/2009 OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM.** **ANNEXURE-C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE VAT TRIBUNAL DATED 20/07/10 IN TA(VAT) NO.4/2010 AND 235/2010).** **ANNEXURE-D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27/08/2012 IN RP NO.39/2011 IN TA (VAT) NO.4/2010 AND 235/2010 OF KVAT AT ERNAKULAM.** ## **Vku/-** **[true copy]**