High Court of KeralaDivision BenchRevisions dismissed; remand confirmed; no costs.
State of Kerala v. K A Jose, Kollamkulan Agencies Pvt Ltd
Case / Petition Number:OT.Rev Nos. 29/2022 to 44/2022
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 order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal is confirmed. Revisions dismissed. No order as to Costs.
- Final Disposition
- Revisions dismissed; remand confirmed; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- State of Kerala
Respondents
- K A Jose
- Kollamkulam Agencies Pvt Ltd
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • V K Shamsudheen
Counsels for Respondents
- • Harisankar V. Menon
- • Meera V. Menon
- • K. Krishna
- • Sreejith R. Nair
- • Joy P. J.
Case Synopsis & Summary
These matters arise from a batch of revision petitions under the Kerala VAT/CST regime, heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 12 October 2022. The petitions, labeled OT.Rev Nos. 29/2022 through 44/2022, challenge orders of the Additional Bench, Kottayam, disposing of applications for exemption under Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956 and corresponding reliefs under the Kerala KVAT Act, 2003. The core issue concerns whether government notifications issued under Section 8—and later amended—correctly regulate exemptions for inter-State sales of natural rubber and tread rubber, and whether a dealer can secure exemptions under more than one notification. The first notification exempted CST on inter-State movement where VAT had already been paid; the second restricted the exemption to sub-section (1) of Section 8; the third introduced an option for payment of tax. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for fresh disposal and the Tribunal upheld the remand. The State contends the second notification supersedes the first and eliminates double exemptions, while the dealer and its counsel argue the dealer retains a choice and that the remand is tenable. The court, citing Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer, holds that the second notification governs the exemption regime and that the dealer’s option must be given effect to. The result is that the revisions are dismissed and the remand order is affirmed, with no costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
CST Act, 1956 - Section 8 (sub-sections 1, 2, 4, 5)KVAT Act, 2003 - Section 25(1)KVAT Act, 2003 - Section 63
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The State contends that the first notification created an illegitimate double exemption; the second notification supersedes and limits exemptions to sub-section (1) of Section 8; the Government correctly rectified the scheme and the dealer should not enjoy two exemptions; remand is improper and the matter should be decided strictly under the second notification.
Contentions of Respondents
The dealer may exercise a choice under the combined regime: exemption under the second notification (limited to sub-section (1) of Section 8) or pay the tax; remand to decide the relief prayed for is proper; the Government’s notifications are valid; the Tribunal’s remand is tenable; the dealer’s option must be given effect to.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hi-Tek Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer | (2020) 74 GSTR 486 (Ker) | Positive | The Kerala High Court agrees with the Single Judge’s conclusion in Hi-Tek Traders on the effect and scope of the CST/CVAT notifications, endorsing the view that the second notification governs the exemption regime and that the dealer has limited options. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Kerala v. K A Jose, Kollamkulan Agencies Pvt Ltd and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
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