Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 130 OF 2016 TAVAT 58/2012 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD. ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 011 BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.115/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 115 OF 2016 TAVAT 1557/2011 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: M/S. POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 118 OF 2016 TAVAT 57/2011 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD. ERNAKULAM-682 011. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 119 OF 2016 TAVAT 1559/2011 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: M/S POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES LTD ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 011 BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 120 OF 2016 TAVAT 59/2012 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: M/S.POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES LTD. ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 011. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 122 OF 2016 TAVAT 56/2012 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: M/S. POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICE LTD ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -7-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 125 OF 2016 TAVAT 1560/2011 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: M/S. POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES LTD ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 011. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -8-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 131 OF 2016 TAVAT 1558/2011 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES , ERNAKULAM BY GP M.M. JASMIN RESPONDENT/S: M/S.POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES LTD. ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011 BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.130/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -9- S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - OT.Rev Nos.130/2016, 115/2016, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
(Dated this the 13th day of January 2023) Basant Balaji J., The state has filed these revisions against the common
order in T.A.(VAT) No.1557 of 2011 and connected cases,
which were filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). For an easy understanding of the cases dealt with by the Tribunal, a tabular column is appended hereunder: -10- Proceedings of Asst. Appeals before the Appeals before Commissioners Spl. Deputy Commissioner KVATA Tribunal Circle III
Order No. TA VAT Nos.1557,
dt.28.2.2011, 2011 (Appeals by the dt.1.6.2011, dt.28.09.2010 and
dt. 25.9.2010 KVATA Nos.1405/11, Order No. 4042/10 TA VAT Nos.56, 57, dt.28.2.2011, (Appeals by the State)
dt.24.6.2009, dt.28.09.2010 and dt. 29.6.2010
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these
revisions are as follows: The assessee is an authorised dealer of motor cars manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India -11- Ltd. They filed returns pertaining to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The returns filed by the dealer were accepted and the assessments relating to the aforesaid assessment years were completed. Thereafter the assessment was reopened under Section 25 of the KVAT Act alleging escaped assessment. Pre-assessment notices were issued to the dealer and dealer filed replies, but the assessing authority did not accept the objections raised and repelling the objections, the assessment was completed by making modifications.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority,
the dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The first appellate authority, considering the contentions raised by the assessee, modified the assessment -12- orders to a certain extent after sustaining the order of the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the modifications effected by the first appellate authority, the State filed T.A.
(VAT) Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2012. Aggrieved by the
confirmation of the order of the assessing authority, the assessee filed T.A.(VAT) Nos.1557, 1558, 1559 and 1560 of 2011. The Tribunal considered the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the State together and the appeals filed by the State were dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
4. The State has filed these revisions against the orders of the Tribunal dismissing their appeals and allowing the appeals filed by the assessee.
5. The questions of law raised in these revisions, are -13- as follows: “1. Whether the impugned order is sustainable in law.
2. Whether the direction of the Tribunal to allow the
claim of discount towards the amount passed through credit notes is in accordance with law in view of the decision in Madras Cement Case reported in 147 STC 626.
3. Whether the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the warranty reimbursement claim of the assessee is in accordance with law.
4. Whether the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the levy of tax on the fixed assets of the assessee is in accordance with law.
5. Is it proper for the Tribunal to uphold the direction of the 1st appellate authority to accept the RC book of the used cars for the purpose of levy of tax.
6. Whether the Tribunal is right in law for deleting the addition made by the assessing authority for probable omission and suppression.
7. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that "for repairing charges tax cannot be levied" is in accordance with law.
8. Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding the miscellaneous income is in accordance with law.
9. Whether the Tribunal has failed to apply the principles
held in Mohd. Ekram Khan case reported in (136 STC
-14- 515) (SC) and in the case of Prerana Motors (P) Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.1821/07) and in M/S TVS & Sons Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 14260/2007) and also the decision of this Hon'ble Court in ABT Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala.
10. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing authority to allow the claim of discount on the amount passed through credit notes.
11. Is it proper for the Tribunal to direct the assessing authority to reconsider the issue of sufferance of tax by used cars accepting the RC book is in accordance with law.
12. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is in accordance with law.”
6. O.T.Revision Nos.122 of 2016, 118 of 2012, 130
of 2012 and 120 of 2012, filed against the dismissal of TA(VAT) Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2012 respectively before the Tribunal, are dealt hereunder: -15- The first challenge by the State before the Tribunal was in respect of deduction of amounts passed through credit notes. The assessing authority did not allow the claim of deduction. But the first appellate authority set aside the order and directed the assessing authority to verify the books including customers accounts of the dealer to ensure whether the assessee has received only net amount from the customers. The revenue contended that the claim of deduction passed through credit notes was not allowable as the discount allowed were not as per the invoices and not deductable from the billed price. It was contended that explanation III of section 2 (x/ix)(ii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act') was not adhered to by the first appellate authority. -16-
7. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the
price difference between the listed price and the price agreed by the dealer are different and the price of the vehicle is arrived through bargain and the final price at which the vehicle sold would be lesser than the listed price. In such circumstances, credit note is raised to adjust the listed price and the final price. Therefore, the amount granted through credit notes will not fall within the scope of explanation 2 of Section 2 of the KVAT Act. The first appellate authority set aside the finding of the assessing authority and gave a direction to the assessing authority to verify the aspect afresh. It was also directed to see whether the dealer has received only the net amount and if that be so, appropriate orders should be passed in accordance with -17- law.
8. The assessing authority re-examined the matter as
per common order of the first appellate authority and thereafter, it was held that the discount received by the assessee was allowed and the price adjustment was done. The Tribunal, taking note of these aspects, held that there is no impropriety or illegality in the order of the first appellate authority in directing reconsideration of the net amount. It was also held that, since credit notes are not discounts and only price adjustment, it does not fall within the meaning of term specified in explanation (iii) of section 2 (x/ix)(ii) of KVAT Act. Therefore the finding of the first appellate authority was confirmed.
9. The second issue was in respect of the sale of fixed
-18- assets. The first appellate authority confirmed levy with regard to the other assets and directed the assessing authority to follow circular No.19 of 2006. The contention raised by the revenue was that the dealer has failed to produce any evidence to satisfy the authority that the tax as suffered in the case of sale of fixed assets. It was contended that the first appellate authority should not have directed the assessing authority to accept the RC book as evidence to prove tax suffered in the case of sale of fixed assets. The circular No.19/2006/CT makes it clear that if the vehicle has been originally registered in the State paying tax under KGST/VAT and it has been used at least for 15 months, the certificate of registration evidences purchase from any registered dealer then, it is sufficient -19- proof for payment of tax under the KGST. The first appellate authority has only directed the assessing authority to reconsider the issue in view of circular No.19 of 2006. Therefore, the Tribunal did not interfere with the said finding.
10. Another contention raised by the revenue was in respect of levy of tax on repair charges received for the
whole year in question. The first appellate authority held
that the assessee dealer is entitled to get deduction for fitting charges, labour charges and proportionate establishment charges. The contention raised was that, in the absence of a separate account maintained by the dealer in respect of the value of consumables in the first contract, the dealer is only eligible for 25% towards labour and -20- services from the total works contract receipt. The first appellate authority held that fitting charges of spare parts on which VAT, has already been charged are included in the labour charges. Labour charges can be easily ascertained from the books of account and when labour charges are determined, the value of materials and labour charges can be segregated. The first appellate authority has directed the assessing authority to recompute the taxable turn over after granting deduction of fitting charges, labour charges and proportionate establishment charges etc. The Tribunal concurred with the finding of the first appellate authority and therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal, for dismissing the appeal, has given cogent reasons for remitting back the issues to -21- the assessing authority for fresh consideration. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings entered by the Tribunal in respect of the orders passed in the revenues appeal. Therefore we do not intend to accept the findings of the Tribunal.
12. TA(VAT) Nos.1557, 1558, 1559 and 1560 of
2011 filed by the assessee and allowed by the Tribunal are dealt hereunder. The levy of tax on warranty period of reimbursement was an issue that was challenged in appeal by the assessee. The assessee contended that there cannot be a sale transaction between the principal and agent and the warranty jobs are done by the assessee acting as agent of the manufacturer. The warranty is provided to the customer -22- by the manufacturer of the vehicles sold by the appellant and therefore, reimbursement of levy of tax on warranty period is unsustainable. The Tribunal after perusing the judgments of M/s.TVS & Sons Ltd (SLP in M Civil Appeal No.14260/07), Mohammaed Ekram Khan and Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2004 (136) STC 515 (SC)], ABT Industries Ltd. and STAT Additional Bench, Mattancherrry in GMMCO. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (TA NO.137 & 138 of 2008), directed the assessing authority to grant relief to the assessee based on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court. Since the Tribunal has only directed the assessing authority to grant relief in accordance with the judgment of the Apex court, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. -23-
13. The next challenge was regarding the dis-
allowance of concessional rates of sale to CSD. The assessing authority disallowed the claim but the first appellate authority held that since certain declaration in Form No.45 are produced, they are entitled to concessional rate. Before the Tribunal at the time of hearing, the assessee produced certificate obtained from CSD for 2.51 crores, which the assessee could not produce before the assessing authority or the first appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal, for meeting the ends of justice directed the assessing authority to consider the declaration in Form No.45 and to recompute and pass appropriate orders. We have thoroughly gone through the judgments of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority and do not find -24- any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the Tribunal. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and hence, the Revisions fail. Accordingly, the Tax Revisions are dismissed. SD/- S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE SD/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/ -25- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 115/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 28/02/2011 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE - III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 04/10/2011 IN KVATA 1405/11, 4041/10, 4042/10 & Annexure C A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT) 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT) Annexure C(a) A TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE C -26- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 118/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 1.6.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 4.10.2011 IN KVATA 1405/11, 4041/10, 4042/10 & 2070/11. ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT) 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT) 56/12 TO 59/12 DATED 29.10.2015. ANNEXURE C(a) A TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE C -27- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 119/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 28/09/2010 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE -III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 04/10/2011 IN KVATA 1405/11. 4041/10, 4042/10 AND Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT) 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT) -28- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 120/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 25.09.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 04.10.2011 IN KVATA 1405/11, 4041/10, 4042/10 AND ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT) 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT) -29- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 122/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 28.02.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 04.10.2011 IN KVATA 1405/11, 4041/10, 4042/10 & ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT) 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT) -30- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 125/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 25.9.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE -III COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERANAKULAM ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 4.10.2011 IN KVATA 1405/11 4041/10 4042/10 AND ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA VAT 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA VAT 56/12/ TO 59/12 DATED 29.10.2015 -31- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 131/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 01/06/2011 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE- III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF TE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 04/10/2011 IN KVATA 1405/11, 4041/10, 4042/10 & Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT) 1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT) -32- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 130/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 28.9.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 4.10.2011 IN KVATA 1405/11, 4041/10, 4042/10 & ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TA(VAT)1557/11 TO 1560/11 AND TA(VAT)56/12 TO 59/12 DATED 29.10.2015.