State of Kerala v K A Jose

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. V. Bhatti
Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-10-12
Court Decision / Holding: The revisions are dismissed. The Tribunal’s remand is upheld; the Assessing Officer shall consider and decide the relief prayed for by the dealer with due regard to the three notifications. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala

Respondents

K A Jose, Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• State of Kerala – Sri. Government Pleader V K Shamsudheen

Counsels for Respondents

• Harisankar V. Menon; Meera V. Menon; K. Krishna; Sreejith R. Nair; Joy P. J.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated High Court of Kerala decision involving OT.Rev Nos. 29/2022 to 44/2022, arising from revision petitions under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956. The petitioners (State of Kerala) challenge orders of the Commercial Tax Appellate Tribunal/Tribunal that remanded the matter for disposal, in the context of exemptions under CST Act notifications governing inter-State sales of rubber products and the interplay of three notifications issued by the Government under Section 8 of the CST Act and provisions of the KVAT Act. The core legal dispute is whether exemptions granted under the first CST notification (Section 8(1)/(2)) can be preserved when a second notification (Section 8(4)) limits exemptions to sub-section (1), and a third notification creates an option to pay tax. The Tribunal’s remand was challenged by the State, which argued that the dealer cannot be given a double exemption and that the second notification effectively supersedes the first. The respondents (K A Jose/Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt Ltd) supported remand, arguing the dealer may opt for exemption or tax payment as provided by the notifications. The Kerala High Court, applying Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer, upheld the Government’s interpretation that the second notification narrows the exemption and that remand was justified. The court ultimately dismissed the revisions, holding that the Assessing Officer should decide relief consistent with all three notifications, with no costs awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

CST Act, 1956 - Section 8(1)CST Act, 1956 - Section 8(2)CST Act, 1956 - Section 8(4)KVAT Act, 2003 - Section 25(1)KVAT Act, 2003 - Section 63

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the second notification under Section 8(4) of the CST Act narrows exemptions granted by the first notification ( Sections 8(1)/(2) ). It is argued that allowing the dealer to exercise the option under the third notification would amount to a double exemption and that the remand order of the Tribunal is legally unsustainable. The State relies on Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer to support the interpretation that the second notification supersedes the first for purposes of the dispute, and that the government’s measure to rectify the original deficiency in the first notification is valid. The State seeks dismissal of the revisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The dealer-respondent argues that the remand by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer was tenable, given the interplay of three notifications and the dealer’s right to opt for exemption or pay the tax as provided by the CN. It is contended that the Tribunal correctly upheld the remand and that the relief must be decided in accordance with the statutory framework (three notifications). The respondents seek dismissal of the revisions on account of the legal structure enabling exemption and option to pay under the CST and KVAT regimes.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer	1 (2020) 74 GSTR 486 (Ker)	Positive	Cited and followed to accept that the second CST notification narrows the exemption and supersedes the first notification for purposes of the dispute.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 29 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 199/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686507 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; SREEJITH R.NAIR ;JOY P.J. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.30/2022, 31/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-2-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 30 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 219/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; SREEJITH R.NAIR; JOY P.J. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 31 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 218/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD., ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; SREEJITH R.NAIR; JOY P.J. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-4-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 32 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 221/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD. ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-5-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 33 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 220/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD, ANAKKAL PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; SREEJITH R.NAIR; JOY P.J. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-6-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 34 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 223/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; P.J.JOY THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-7-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 35 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 222/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-8-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 36 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 235/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 37 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 237/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE AND GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD. ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-10-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 38 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 240/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; P.J.JOY THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 39 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 238/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX(LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD. ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-12-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 40 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 236/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686507 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD. ANAKKAL P O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; K.KRISHNA MEERA V.MENON; P.J.JOY THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 41 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 241/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD. ANAKKAL P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA; P.J.JOY THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 42 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 242/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 43 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 243/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON; K.KRISHNA P.J.JOY; MEERA V.MENON THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-16-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 44 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 239/2014 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA; REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: K.A JOSE, KOLLAMKULAM AGENCIES PVT LTD ANAKKAL P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON; MEERA V.MENON; K.KRISHNA R.SREEJITH; JOY P.J. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.29/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## O R D E R [OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022] ## S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Mr V K Shamsudheen, learned Senior Government Pleader, and Mr Harisankar V Menon, learned Advocate, for parties. 2. Appellant/State in TA (VAT) Nos.199, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 235, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 & 243/2014 is the revision petitioners. K A Jose, Kottayam/dealer is the respondent. 2.1 The Government in the purported exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the CST Act 1956 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-18-** issued the following notifications: 1. G.O.(P) No.159/2008/TD dated 31.07.2008 2. G.O.(P) No.181/2011/TD dated 30.11.2011 3. G.O. (P) No.124/2019/Taxes dated 07.08.2019 For clarity, the notifications are referred to as first, second, and third notifications, respectively. Through the first notification, the Government exempted the tax payable under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 8 on the turnover of sale of natural rubber coming under Entry 134 of List A to the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act 2003 and tread rubber [HSN 4006.10.00] in the course of inter-State trade or commerce subject to the condition that the said products have suffered tax under the KVAT Act 2003. Through the second notification, the Government exempted payment of tax under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the CST Act on the fulfilment of the requirements stated in sub-section (4) **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-19-** of the said Act. In other words, the situation covered by the first notification is with reference to sub-sections (1) and (2), whereas the second notification restricted the exemption to the contingencies covered by sub-section (1) of Section 8. The third notification introduced an amendment providing for optional payment of tax under the CST Act. 2.3 Now, let us revert to the circumstances in the revisions on hand. We take note of the circumstances referred by the Tribunal in the common order under revision, _viz_ . that the dealer is engaged in the business of creamed latex and rubber. The dealer was making local purchases of rubber, both from registered and unregistered dealers. The dealer was selling the rubber inter-State and intra-State. Insofar as the inter-State sale is concerned, the first notification granted exemption from payment of CST. The Assessing Officer in the **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** order made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act denied the exemption claimed under the first notification. The dealer appealed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), and, for our purpose, it would be sufficient to note that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), by referring to the second notification, remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for disposal afresh. The State filed appeals before the Tribunal by contending that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) fell in error by calling upon the Assessing Officer to take note of the second notification noted above. 2.4 The Tribunal, after considering the sequence of granting exemptions and withdrawing the exemption granted, held that the remand by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is tenable. As part of its consideration, the Tribunal observed that the dealer has the choice to opt for the exemption or pay the **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** tax otherwise payable in this behalf. Hence, the revisions at the instance of the State. 3. Mr V K Shamsudheen argues that the dealer, in the case on hand, is gaining a double advantage and when the order dated 24.03.2010 was made by the Assessing Officer the first notification alone was in operation. The second notification does not show that the first notification is superseded by the second notification. Giving choice to the dealer is illegal and the order dated 24.03.2010 is correct. 4. Mr Harisankar V Menon argues that the second notification is issued by the Government limiting the exemption available to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the CST Act. The patent infirmity in the first notification is realized by the Government and the second notification was issued. Considering the jurisdiction and competence of the **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Government, the Government, in its wisdom, has limited the operation to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the CST Act. Therefore, for all purposes, an issue arising under the first notification shall be considered, and the dispute decided by giving due effect to the exemption limited by the second notification. The third notification, wherein a proviso was incorporated. i.e., giving the option to the dealer. This has to be examined in deciding the dispute; the remand is justified from any point of view. He prays for dismissing the revisions. 5. We have taken note of the contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5.1 The first illegality pointed out is that the order of the Assessing Officer must be considered and decided by referring to contemporaneous expressions used in the first notification. In other words, the notification has to be literally applied, and **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** orders, as are deemed fit, passed by the Assessing Officer. We are afraid the said argument is untenable because the Government, for jurisdictional issues, rectified the mistake that has crept in the first notification. With the issuance of the second notification, for all purposes, the requirement of subsection (2) etc, shall not be construed as still in force. The argument of the Government, if accepted, the State’s jurisdiction to grant exemption to Sub-section (2) is also accepted. The effect of the second notification is considered by a learned Single Judge in _Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer_[1] _,_ and we are in respectful agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in _Hi-Tek Traders_ case. On the choice available to the dealer, we notice that though the issuance of the first notification was not pointed out before the Tribunal, 1 (2020) 74 GSTR 486 (Ker) **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-24-** the Tribunal, upon consideration of the statutory scheme, held that the dealer has a choice. In our considered view, from the above discussion, no infirmity is made out within the scope of Section 63 of the KVAT Act. The order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Tribunal are confirmed. The Assessing Officer considers and decides the relief prayed for by the dealer, by keeping in perspective the notifications referred to above. Revisions fail. Dismissed. No order as to Costs. Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-25-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 30/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 14.01.2009 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2504/2011 & CONNECTED CASES DATED 17.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSD BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NO199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 31/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 14.01.2009 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2504/2011 & CONNECTED CASES DATED 17.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 32/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 14.01.2009 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2504/2011 & CONNECTED CASES DATED 17.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 33/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 14.01.2009 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2504/2011 & CONNECTED CASES DATED 17.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 34/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 16.04.2012 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2504/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 17.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NO.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 35/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 16.04.2012 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2504/2011 & CONNECTED CASES DATED 17.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NO.222/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 36/2022 ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 17.03.2012 FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2148/2012 DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 37/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER PONKUNNAM DATED 07.04.2012 FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2149/2012 DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NO.S 199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-33-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 38/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 07.04.2012 FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2149/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-34-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 39/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 07-04-2012 FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2149/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NO.S.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 40/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 03.04.2012 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2156/2012 DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NOS. 199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-36-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 41/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 07.04.2012 FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2149/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 42/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 07.04.2012 FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2149/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT)NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-38-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 43/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 07.04.2012 FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2149/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **-39-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 44/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 07.04.2012 FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, 2011 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO. 2149/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.05.2013 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NOS.199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021 **OT.Rev Nos.29/2022, 30/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 37/2022, 38/2022, 39/2022, 40/2022, 41/2022, 42/2022, 43/2022, 44/2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 29/2022 ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM DATED 24.03.2010 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN KVAT NO.2563/2011 DATED 19.12.2021 Annexure 3 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA (VAT) NO. 199/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 18.03.2021