State of Kerala v Malanad Gold Balussery, Balussery (OT.Rev Nos. 33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 33 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 516/2019 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW) DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S. MALANAD GOLD BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.50/2021, 52/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-2-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **OT.REV NO. 50 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 517/2019 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL** **BENCH,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX(LAW) DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S. MALANAD GOLD, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.33/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-3-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **OT.REV NO. 52 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 518/2019 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL** **BENCH,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW) DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S. MALANAD GOLD, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.33/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-4-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **OT.REV NO. 51 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 520/2019 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL** **BENCH,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW) DEPARTMENT OF KERALA ,STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S. MALANAD GOLD, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.33/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-5-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 48 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 521/2019 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL** **BENCH,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S. MALANAD GOLD, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.33/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-6-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **OT.REV NO. 49 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 519/2019 OF AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL** **BENCH,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (LAW) DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M M JASMIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S.MALANAD GOLD, BALUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.33/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [65 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** [OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021] ## S.V. Bhatti, J. We have heard Ms M M Jasmin learned Government Pleader and Mr Abdul Azees learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The State is the revision petitioner, and M/s. Malanad Gold, Balussery is the respondents. For convenience, we refer to parties as the Revenue and the Dealer. 2.1 Identical and interdependent circumstances are present in the batch of O T Revisions. The Revenue, aggrieved by the common order dated 19.08.2020, has filed this batch of revisions under Section 63 of the KVAT Act read with Rule 80 of the KVAT Rules. Reference to the circumstances set out in O T **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Revision Nos.33, and 48/2021 would be sufficient for disposing of the batch cases. OT Rev. 33/2021 3. The Dealer for the period of return 2011-12 has opted to pay the compounded tax under Section 8 of the KVAT Act. The Dealer for the Assessment Year 2010-11 paid tax under Section 6 of the KVAT Act. The turnover for 2010-11 is stated as Rs.37,36,979/- and the assessee, according to Section 8(f) of the KVAT Act, is liable to pay 120% of the higher tax paid/payable in the preceding three years. Because of erroneous computation and payment of a compounded rate of tax, the Dealer was served notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the period of returns from 2011-12 to 2016-17. The Assessing Authority refixed the rate of tax payable by the Dealer. It is unnecessary to refer to the amount determined for **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-9-** our present purpose. Briefly narrated, the best assessment judgment made by the Assessing Officer was the subject matter of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned common order, allowed the revision filed by the Dealer. OT Rev 48/2021 4. The instant revision relates to the return filed by the Dealer for the year 2016-17. The circumstances narrated while referring to O.T. Rev. No.33/2021 are substantially applicable and hence are not reiterated for brevity. The distinguishing circumstance is that by giving effect to the compounded rate of tax payable by the Dealer for the period of return 2011-12 has been redetermined for all the subsequent five years, namely 2012-13 to 2016-17. 4.1 The Revenue raises the following questions of law: **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** “a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Assessment order for the year 2011-12 issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT is barred by limitation is sustainable under law? b) Whether the Tribunal erred in entered into a finding that the re-fixing of the compounding tax by the assessing authority for the succeeding years i.e. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 based on the order for the year 2011-12 is not sustainable for the reason that the assessment order for the year 2011-12 is barred by limitation? 5. Adv M M Jasmin argues that the question does not arise since the principle laid down in _Baiju A A v. State Tax officer_[1] has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party (Justice S V Bhatti). Therefore, the second question is answered following the judgment in W.A. No.48/2020 and _Baiju A A_ case. 6. However, it is argued with considerable force that > 1 2020 (1) KLT 233 **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-11-** the Tribunal committed a serious error of law by extending the benefit of setting aside the assessment order of the year 2011-12 to other years, namely 2012-13 to 2016-17. The Counsel invites our attention to the Full Bench Reference Order dated 06.04.2022 in S.T. Rev. 21/2014 to contend that this Court had considered the tax payable as conceded in the return or the account in the Reference Order. The Reference Order dealt with the tax payable under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The compounded rate of tax payable under Section 8(f) is determined on the highest tax payable by a Dealer as conceded in the return or accounts or tax paid by him under the KVAT Act, whichever is higher in a year of the three consecutive preceding years. 7. Assuming that the order under Section 25(1) for 2011-12 is barred by limitation, what is taken away by such **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-12-** adjudication is the tax determined and payable for 2011-12’. The figures shown in return or accounts would remain for consideration for determining the Dealer's compounded rate of tax payable. Under Section 8(f) of the KVAT Act, the tax payable for the period of return 2012-13 to 2016-17 is determined on the highest tax payable by the Dealer as conceded in the return or accounts or tax paid by him under this Act for any one of the three consecutive years preceding the year in which the option is taken. The reassessment for 2011-12 has been barred by limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, but the Revenue can decide the compounded rate of tax payable under Section 8(f) of the KVAT Act for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Our attention is invited to the interpretative process adopted by the Full Bench in S.T. Rev. No.21/2014 on the words ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ and the **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## concluding portion, which reads as under: “11. The words “the return, accounts, the turnover tax paid” are applicable to each one of the accounting years and inter se whichever is highest, is to be adopted for determining 115% tax on compounded rates. The argument of the petitioner if accepted, then, through interpretation, this Court would be rendering the clear expression of the legislature ineffective. Therefore, it is commended that the question for decision is whether for subsequent years, reference is made to the tax payable as per books of accounts or confined to the turnover tax paid by the dealer. **==> picture [321 x 36] intentionally omitted <==** 16. We are afraid the said argument omits to take note of the factors on which the highest turnover tax is determinable. Construed literally, the word highest is comparing all the three situations. The word ‘paid’ is in the company of words “turnover tax” which means the tax permitted to be paid in the previous year at a compounded rate. The authority verifies the highest tax payable as conceded in the returns or accounts on one hand and turnover tax paid on the other hand whichever is the highest among the three, the applicable percentage viz. **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 115% is applied and compounded rate for the subsequent year is accepted. The construction as commended to the Court by Mr Harisankar, we are afraid, will efface the clear expression in Section 7(b), viz. highest turnover tax payable as conceded in the return/accounts. ‘Payable’ is understood in the company of the return or accounts and ‘paid’ is understood in the company of the turnover tax. By applying the rule of Noscitur-a-sociis, we hold that for the purpose of Section 7(b) the turnover tax payable by the dealer as conceded either in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for the previous consecutive three years is the deciding factor. So interpreted, we hold that the construction adopted by the Tribunal which reads as follows is the correct and literal construction available in the circumstances of the case. “The State contends that TOT payable as per accounts is to be taken for calculating TOT. Respondents contention is that it is to be done on the basis of return. On a perusal of relevant provision, it is very clear that the clause applicable to this assessee is clause (b) of Sec.7. In clause (b) itself, 3 situations arise. 1. Highest turnover tax payable by assessee as conceded in return for any of the previous consecutive three years or 2. Highest turnover tax payable by assessee as conceded in ## **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** accounts for any of the previous consecutive three years or 3. Highest turnover tax paid by assessee for any of the previous consecutive three years.” Counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the revisions. 8. Mr Abdul Azees argues that the best judgment assessment for the return period 2011-12 is illegal and unsustainable as barred by limitation, the consequence of such adjudication is that there is no basis for determination of the compounded rate of tax payable by the Dealer for the subsequent years under consideration. The obligation or basis for demanding an enhanced compounded tax rate is the best judgment for 2011-12. It was argued that the basis is erased, and orders for the subsequent years must fail because the assessment for 2011-12 was beyond the limitation. He invited our attention to the view this Court took in W.P.(C) No. **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-16-** 9425/2016 and W.P.(C) No. 9514/2016. 9. We have taken note of the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties. We prefer to excerpt Section 8(f) hereunder: “(f) (i) any dealer in bullion or ornaments or wares or articles of gold, silver or platinum group metals including diamond may at his option, instead of paying tax on their sale in the State in respect of such goods in accordance with the provisions of section 6, may pay tax at the rate of,- (a) one hundred and fifteen per cent, in case the total turnover of the dealer opting to pay tax under this clause, for the preceding year was rupees ten lakhs or below; (b) one hundred and twenty per cent, in case the total turnover of the dealer opting to pay tax under this clause, for the preceding year was above rupees ten lakhs and up to rupees forty lakhs; (c) one hundred and thirty five per cent, in case the total turnover of the dealer opting to pay tax under this clause, for the preceding year was above rupees forty lakhs and up to rupees one crore; (d) one hundred and fifty per cent, in case the total turnover of **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the dealer opting to pay tax under this clause, for the preceding year was above rupees one crore and above; of the highest tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts, or tax paid by him under this Act, whichever is higher, for an year during any of the three consecutive years preceding that to which such option relates.” 10. Section 8(f)(i) deals with bullion, ornament, wares, and gold, silver, or platinum articles. Section 8(f)(i) clauses (a) to (d) classify the dealer based on the turnover of the dealer in the preceding year. The operative portion of Section 8(f)(i) continues with the words ‘of the highest tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts or tax paid by him under this Act, whichever is higher, for a year during any of the three consecutive years preceding the year in which option is made.’ While appreciating and interpreting the words ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ employed in Section 8(f)(i) of the KVAT Act, we prefer **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-18-** to follow the interpretation adopted by the Full Bench in Reference Order dated 06.04.2022. Having held so, the corollary is that 1. Highest turnover tax payable by the assessee as conceded in return for any of the previous consecutive three years or 2. Highest turnover tax payable by the assessee as conceded in accounts for any of the previous consecutive three years or 3. Highest turnover tax paid by the assessee for any previous three years.” The judgments relied on by Mr Abdul Azees are not on the point, and the judgment has not considered a principle on which the view stated therein is concluded. 11. Let us look at the reasoning of the Tribunal on setting aside the assessment orders for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The consideration begins with the words, ‘Since the assessment proceedings initiated against the dealer for the year 2011-12 are **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-19-** barred by limitation, the re-fixing of compounding tax which has been done based on the order in 2011-12 for the subsequent years must go. The said conclusion is reached without appreciating the words employed in Section 8(f)(i) of the KVAT Act. In this case, there may not be an order of assessment for the return period 2011-12. Still, the details in the accounts for the said year are available, and for the view, the Full Bench has taken, the compounded rate of tax payable is determined by the tax payable on the very books maintained by the Dealer. The Tribunal must examine the matter afresh on merits. Conclusion _O.T. Rev. No.33/2021_ filed for the return period 2011-12 is covered by the judgments of _Baiju A A_ and W.A. No. 48/2020 and batch. Hence dismissed. _O.T. Rev. Nos.48, 49, 50, 51 and 52/2021_ **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-20-** For the reasons mentioned above, the finding of the Tribunal on the orders of assessment made in respective return periods is liable to be interfered with and set aside. Accordingly, the findings in para 10 of the common order dated 19.08.2020 are set aside. As a few other objections are raised on the merits of the matter, O.T. Rev. Nos.48, 49, 50, 51 and 52/2021 are allowed. Matters are remitted to Tribunal for consideration and disposal afresh. No order as to costs. Sd/- **S.V.BHATTI JUDGE** Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** jjj ## **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-21-** ## **APPENDIX OF OT.REV 50/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.08.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.07.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), SGST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NO. 517/2019 DATED 19.08.2020. ## **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-22-** ## **APPENDIX OF OT.REV 52/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.8.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.7.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SGST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT) NO.518/2019 DATED 19.8.2020. ## **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-23-** ## **APPENDIX OF OT.REV 51/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.8.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015 -16 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.7.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 9APPEALS)SGST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA9VAT0 NO 520/2019 DATED 19.8.2020 ## **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-24-** ## **APPENDIX OF OT.REV 48/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ODER DATED 18.08.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.07.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SGST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TV (VAT0 NO. 521/2019 DATED 19.08.2020. ## **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-25-** ## **APPENDIX OF OT.REV 49/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.08.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.07.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SGST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TV (VAT) NO. 519/2019 DATED 19.08.2020. **OT.Rev Nos.33/2021, 50/2021, 52/2021, 51/2021, 48/2021, 49/2021** **-26-** ## **APPENDIX OF OT.REV 33/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.8.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.7.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SGST DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN TA(VAT)NO.516/2019 DATED 19.8.2020.