State of Kerala v Malayala Manorama Company Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ## ST.REV. NO. 53 OF 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 31/2009 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM, ## PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA,REP BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: THE MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR ## OTHER PRESENT: SR GP SHAMSUDHEEN FOR THE PETITIONER., ADV KURYAN THOMAS FOR THE RESPONDENT THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2021, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..45/2010, 47/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-2-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ## ST.REV. NO. 45 OF 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 30/2009 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM, PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: THE MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2021, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..53/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-3-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ## ST.REV. NO. 47 OF 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 32/2009 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM, PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REP.BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW),, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: THE MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2021, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..53/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-4-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ## ST.REV. NO. 48 OF 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 33/2009 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM, PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES,, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: THE MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2021, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..53/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-5-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ## ST.REV. NO. 49 OF 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 34/2009 OF STAT ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM, PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES,, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V K SHAMSUDHEEN ## RESPONDENT/S: THE MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2021, ALONG WITH ST.Rev..53/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-6-** ## **O R D E R** [ST.Rev. Nos.53/2010, 45/2010, 47/2010, 48/2010, 49/2010] ## S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Mr V K Shamsudheen, learned Senior Government Pleader for petitioner and Mr Kuryan Thomas learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Common questions of law and fact are presented for consideration in the batch of revisions. The parties are the State of Kerala/Revision petitioner and the Malayala Manorama Company Limited/dealer is the respondent. The details of the orders etc leading up to the filing of the revision are tabulated hereunder: **-7-** ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** |Sl.<br>No.|Assessment Year and<br>No. & Date of Order|Order of Deputy<br>Commissioner (Appeals)|Kerala Sales Tax<br>Appellate Tribunal|ST Rev.<br>No.| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|2001-02<br>21010310/01-02 dated<br>15.09.2008|STA No.507/08 dt.09.01.2009|TA No.31/2009<br>dt.20.03.2009|53/2010| |2|2000-01<br>21010310/00-01 dated<br>15.09.2008|STA No.506/08 dt.09.01.2009|TA No.30/2009<br>dt.20.03.2009|45/2010| |3|2002-03<br>21010310/02-03 dated<br>15.09.2008|STA No.508/08 dt.09.01.2009|TA No.32/2009<br>dt.20.03.2009|47/2010| |4|2003-04<br>21010310/03-04 dated<br>15.09.2008|STA No.509/08 dt.09.01.2009|TA No.33/2009<br>dt.20.03.2009|48/2010| |5|2004-05<br>21010310/04-05 dated<br>15.09.2008|STA No.510/08 dt.09.01.2009|TA No.34/2009<br>dt.20.03.2009|49/2010| 2.1 The circumstances, in brief stated, are that the Assessing Officer made assessment orders for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. The dealer, aggrieved, filed first appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kottayam. The appellate ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-8-** authority, subject to the dealer depositing Rs.10 lakhs in each one of the appeals, granted stay of the assessment orders. The dealer, in the interregnum, filed application before the assessing authority pointing out a few mistakes in the original assessment order, which could be corrected within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The dates and events set out in ST Rev no. 45/2010 are adverted to for completing the narrative portion of the case of both the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties would state that the dates and events in other cases are substantially the same and similar, hence, reference to the events in one case would be sufficient for disposing of all the S.T. Revisions. 3. The assessing authority within its jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the appeal was pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), made the order dated 20.04.2007 determining the balance tax due from the dealer as **-9-** ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** Rs.38,33,093/-. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice dated 18.08.2008 under Section 43 and received the reply dated 08.09.2008 from the dealer. Through Annexure-A1 order dated 15.09.2008, by giving credit to the amount deposited on 30.03.2007 amounting to Rs.10 lakhs, the amount payable by the dealer has been determined at Rs.34,08,057/-. The controversy that was taken up for adjudication by the dealer, both before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, is that the consideration and the treatment given to the amount deposited by the dealer are incorrect and illegal. The stand of Department is that the amount deposited by the dealer on 30.03.2007 is firstly credited to the interest due from dealer but not to tax due. 3.1 _Per contra_ , the dealer resisted the adjustment, firstly, in interest account as illegal for the reason that the respective assessment orders do not stipulate interest for non-payment or ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-10-** delayed payment of tax. Therefore, the amount deposited by the dealer pursuant to the condition imposed by the appellate authority must be credited to the tax due and payable by the dealer but not to interest account. The Tribunal accepted the case of dealer and allowed the appeal filed in TA No.30/2009 dated 20.03.2009. Hence, the revision at the instance of the Department. 4. Before taking up consideration of the rival contentions, we would refer to the judgment of Full Bench reported in _State of Kerala v. Western India Cosmetic and Health_[1] which takes care of contentions of the dealer squarely. The operative portion of the Full Bench judgment is excerpted as follows: “ 3. The contention raised by Special Government appearing for the State is that interest under Section 23(3A) is payable from the period the tax would have been paid, had the dealer 1 (2010) 1 KLJ 65 (FB) **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-11-** included the turnover in the return filed. On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondents contended that if the turnover is included in the return the assessee will have no liability to pay interest on non-payment or short payment of tax, and if the same happens on account of misclassification of goods under different rates, Rule 21 (9) of the Rules authorises the assessing officer to scrutinize the returns filed and to make provisional or regular assessment demanding actual tax. Therefore according to counsel if there is failure on the part of the assessing officer assessee cannot be called upon to pay interest for the lapses of the officer. Special Government Pleader has referred to the decision of this Court in _CHANDRAMANI TRADERS v. STATE OF KERALA_ , (2008) 16 VST 294 and two unreported decisions of this Court in ST Rev. No. 484 of 2004 and M.F.A. No. 331 of 2000 and contended that interest is payable under Section 23(3A) from the due date it was payable till payment, irrespective of the reason for non-payment, short payment or delayed payment of tax. 4. On going through the provisions both before and after the amendment, it is clear that interest is compensatory in nature inasmuch as it is payable from such date on which tax would have been fallen due, had the dealer included actual turnover in the return relating to such period. Liability arises on account **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-12-** of failure of the dealer to include any turnover of his business in any return filed. In this context, counsel for the respondents submitted that turnover by itself does not determine any tax liability and that is why provision is amended later to include taxable turnover in the Section and consequently there cannot be any liability for interest for period prior to the amendment if turnover was fully returned. We are unable to accept this contention because the question whether there is failure on the part of the assessee to include. turnover in the return filed has to be considered with reference to the return itself, which is form No. 9 prescribed under the Rules. It is to be noted that dealer is required to give description and turnover of each goods, classification made with reference to entries in the Schedule to the Act, the point of sale and the rate of tax of taxable goods. There is a specific column provided in the return to declare the turnover on exempted goods. Therefore the dealer is expected to file return disclosing the entire turnover of all the goods and by bifurcating turnover between taxable and non-taxable and again classifying taxable goods at applicable rate on turnover of each such goods. Non-payment or short payment will arise on account of the dealer misclassifying taxable goods as non-taxable and can also happen on account of mis-classification of taxable goods at rates lower than the rates provided in the schedules to the Act. Therefore **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-13-** failure of inclusion of turnover in the return leading to nonpayment or short -payment of tax under the pre-amended provision means non-inclusion of taxable turnover or any part there of at the appropriate rate of tax. We hold that the amendment is only clarificatory because the turnover omitted in the return that attracts liability for interest is taxable turnover or otherwise the section before it's amendment becomes meaningless. Interest payable under Section 23(3A) is from the date on which tax would have been payable, had the dealer included the turnover at the correct rate of tax in the return filed. Interest under the Section is attracted if there is omission on the part of the dealer to include any taxable turnover in the return filed or wrong claim of exemption made on taxable turnover and further on account of misclassification of goods at lower rate of tax than the actual rate of tax that is payable on the turnover of goods. Further, even if the assessment is made based on the return filed, and such assessment happens to be incorrect later and the demand of tax is increased through revision of assessment under Section 19(1) pursuant to orders under Section 35(1), still the assessee will be liable to pay interest under Section 23(3A) on the differential tax that is between assessed tax and tax paid based on the return. (emphasis supplied) **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-14-** 5. On going through the judgment of this Court above referred, we do not find that this Court has considered the nature of interest payable under Section 23(3A) which we have found to be compensatory in nature. Further this Court has not examined the manner in which a dealer has to file return, the manner in which the dealer has to include turnover of various goods in the return to be filed and the manner of payment of tax along with return contemplated under the Rules. In view of our above finding, the judgment of this Court above referred cannot be said to be laying the correct interpretation of Section 23(3A) of the Act. The finding of this Court is that even if a dealer has declared the turnover lower rate of tax as against higher rate payable under the Act, still the dealer is not liable to pay interest under Section 23(3A) because there was no omission to include turnover. This interpretation in our view defeats the very purpose of the section which is to recover interest in the form of compensation for belated payment of tax. We therefore overrule the judgment in P.K. DAMODRAN's case above referred and allow revision cases by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and by restoring the interest levied under Section 23(3A). However, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that but for the favourable orders. issued by the Tribunal, though now found to be wrong by this Court, respondents. should have settled the liability towards **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-15-** interest under the Amnesty Scheme, that was prevalent upto 31.3.2009. We find force in this contention because had the Tribunal dismissed the appeals probably respondents would have settled the liability under the Amnesty Scheme. We therefore direct the assessing officer to grant amnesty benefit to the respondents reducing the interest in terms of the scheme and allow settlement of liability by demanding further interest at one per cent per month for the amnesty amount payable from the last date for payment under the amnesty scheme till date of payment. Respondents are directed to make application in this regard before the assessing officer within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the officer is directed to allow them to settle liability by making payment within one month thereafter. Demand notice should be raised within one week from the date of making application. We make it clear that amnesty benefit extended by us to the respondents will apply only to the respondents because of the peculiar facts stated above.” 4.1 It is contextual to refer to the judgment dated 05.12.2007 in S.T Rev. No.205/2008 and batch and WA 1035/2006. The Revisions and Appeal are at the instance of ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-16-** Malayala Manorama/the dealer herein and also the State. The subject matter of the Writ Appeal and S.T. Revisions is same as the present years for which orders are made adjusting Rs.10 lakhs from the interest due instead of tax due as claimed by the dealer. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows; “9. In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (supra), the question that arose was whether the publishers of newspapers were entitled to the benefit of Section 8(3)(b) read with Section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 that entitled them to purchase raw materials required by them at the concessional rate of 4%. A similar contention is seen to have been put forward in the said. case also. In the said case also, the expression "goods" had been amended to exclude newspapers from the purview thereof. The Apex Court considered the question as to whether the definition of "goods" should condition the understanding of all other provisions of the enactment and held that, each provision would have to be considered and understood in the context in which it is used. B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J, speaking for the Court has concluded the issue as follows: **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-17-** "...It refers to manufactured "goods", i.e.. goods manufactured by such purchasing dealer-in this case, newspapers. If we attach the defined meaning to "goods" In the second half of section 8(3)(b), it would place the newspapers in a more unfavourable position than they were prior to the amendment of the definition in section 2(d). It should also be remembered that section 2 which defines certain expressions occurring in the Act opens with the words "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires." This shows that wherever the word "goods" occurs in the enactment, it is not mandatory that one should mechanically attribute to the said expression the meaning assigned to it in clause (d). Ordinarily, that is so. But where the context does not permit or where the context requires otherwise, the meaning assigned to it in the said definition need not be applied. If we keep the above consideration in mind, it would be evident that the expression "goods" occurring in the second half of section 8(3)(b) cannot be taken to exclude newspapers from its purview. The context does not permit it. It could never have been included by Parliament. Before the said amendment, the position was the State could not levy tax on intra-State sale of newspapers; the Parliament could but it did not and entry 92A of List I bars the Parliament **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-18-** from imposing tax on inter-State sale of newspapers; as a result of the above provisions, while the newspapers were not paying any tax on their sale, they were enjoying the benefit of section 8(3)(b) read with section 8(1)(b) and paying tax only at 4 per cent on non-declared goods which they required for printing and publishing newspapers. Their position could not be worse after the amendment which would be the case if we accept the contention of the Revenue.” In view of the above, the contention of the Revenue that the definition of "goods" should control the wording "finished products" in Section 5(3) of the Act has to fail. 10. The counsel for the assessee in S.T.Rev. No. 205 of 2008 has placed reliance on the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Refineries Ltd. [(1978) 42 STC 225] and Essar Oil Ltd v. Intelligence Officer (2010 (4) KHC 239) to contend that, the selling dealer could not be fastened with any liability even assuming that the purchasing dealer had issued the Form 18 without being authorised to do so. In other words, no allegation of misuse of statutory forms could be fastened on the selling dealer who had made use of the Forms made available by the purchaser. However, in the context of the view that we have taken above, we refrain from considering the said issue any further. **-19-** ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** The result of the above discussion is that, the expression "finished products" occurring in Section 5(3) of the Act need not be controlled by the definition of "goods" contained in Section 2(xii) of the Act. It also need not be restricted to mean only products that are taxable under the Act. The insistence on any such requirement would be unwarranted going by the wording of the provision, after the amendment. In view of the above, it is ordered as follows: (i) W.A. No. 1035 of 2006 is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Exts. P1 to P4, P9, P10 and P11 are quashed. (ii) S.T.Rev. Nos. 125 of 2009 and 126 of 2009 are allowed. The orders under revision are set aside. S.T. Rev. No. 205 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal. (iii) S.T.Rev. Nos. 125 of 2009 and 126 of 2009 are allowed. The orders under revision are set aside. S.T. Rev. No. 205 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal.” 4.2 _Western India Cosmetic and Health_ decided the mode of adjustment of deposited amount, and method of apportionment . of the amount deposited by the dealer is no more _res integra_ **-20-** ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** Similarly, the computation of tax by the assessing authority is also interdicted and the question is answered in favour of the dealer. Thereby, the original order of assessment dated 05.01.2007 is substantially changed. 5. Reverting to the circumstances of the case, it may be noted that in the order dated 20.04.2007 the Assessing Officer, did not take note of Rs.10 lakhs deposited on 30.03.2007 by the dealer. For the first time, it is considered only in the order dated 15.09.2008, adjusting against the interest due and payable by the dealer as on 30.03.2007. The principle involved in giving credit to the amount deposited by the dealer is that it is first adjusted against interest due or payable by the dealer and balance amount, if any, is credited to tax arrears. It is an undisputed circumstance that the original assessment order is dated 05.01.2007, the legality of the said order has been considered and decided by this Court along with connected **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-21-** matters in W.A. No.1035/2006 vide judgment dated 05.12.2017. The revisions filed by the dealer were allowed and the revision filed by the State was dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. The tax due or eligible for refund needs to be substantially considered afresh by the Assessing Officer and orders passed strictly in terms of the judgment dated 05.12.2017 in W.A. No.1035/2006. 5.1 The findings of the Tribunal are set aside. The judgment of the Full Bench in _Western India Cosmetic and Health_ is followed on the calculation or adjustment of amount deposited by the dealer. The said findings of the Appellate Tribunal are not sustainable in law on the following reasons: a) Interest under the provisions of the KGST Act is automatic, becomes payable on the date on which return is filed, and hence no separate order demanding interest is necessary. **-22-** ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** b) The assessment orders which were considered by the first appellate authorities and the orders which are rectified in Annexure-A orders are different. Hence the question of merger does not arise. The details are tabulated thus: |Assessment Year|Date of order of first<br>appellate authority|Date of order that was<br>rectified under<br>Annexure-A.| |---|---|---| |2000-01|05.01.2007|24.04.2007| |2001-02|09.02.2007|24.04.2007| |2002-03|23.02.2007|24.04.2007 (order<br>revised on 26.03.2008<br>was not considered)| |2003-04|06.03.2007|24.04.2007| |2004-05|06.03.2007|24.04.2007| 5.2 The order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. The Assessing Officer is given liberty to work out the tax payable or refundable to the dealer, as the case may be, keeping **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-23-** in mind the final view expressed by this Court in _Western India Cosmetic and Health_ case and judgment dated 05.12.2017 in W.A. No.1035/2006 and connected cases. S.T.Revisions are allowed. **==> picture [80 x 145] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> Sd/-<br>S.V.BHATTI<br>JUDGE<br>Sd/-<br>BASANT BALAJI<br>JUDGE<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> jjj ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-24-** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 45/2010** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.09.2008. ANNEXURE-B THE COMMON ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 09.01.2009. ANNEXURE-C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STAT DATED 20.03.2009. ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-25-** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 47/2010** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.09.2008. ANNEXURE-B THE COMMON ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 09.01.2009. ANNEXURE-C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STAT DATED 20.03.2009. ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-26-** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 48/2010** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.09.2008. ANNEXURE-B THE COMMON ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 09.01.2009. ANNEXURE-C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STAT DATED 20.03.2009. ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-27-** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 49/2010** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.09.2008. ANNEXURE-B THE COMMON ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 09.01.2009. ANNEXURE-C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STAT DATED 20.03.2009. ## **S.T.Rev. Nos.53, 45, 47, 48 & 49/2010** **-28-** ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 53/2010** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.09.2008. ANNEXURE-B THE COMMON ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DATED 09.01.2009. ANNEXURE-C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STAT DATED 20.03.2009.