ALOK SPICES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the revision petition filed under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the assessee had formulated as many as six questions, as arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the assessee sought to make submissions on questions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Erach F. D. Mehta v. Minoo F. D. Mehta AIR 1971 SC 1653, the learned counsel found it more that difficult to pursue those grounds especially in the view of the restricted nature of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 41 of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel pressed before us question No. 3 which reads thus : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sales tax authorities are justified in cancelling the registration certificate without issuing notice under section 14 (8) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act ?" In this connection, learned counsel has taken us through the notice issued by the assessing authority under sub-section (8) of section 14, which is annexure G of the paper book and also to the order cancelling the registration which is annexure F. On a perusal of the said notice and the cancellation order, we find that the grounds mentioned in the notice for the cancellation of the certificate of registration and the grounds on which the certificate of registration has been cancelled are totally different. It is clear from the notice and the order cancelling registration that the assessing authority did not give any opportunity to the assessee as provided under section 14 (8) of the Act before cancelling the certificate of registration. Against the order of cancellation of the certificate of registration, the assessee has filed appeals before the first appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam, and a second appeal before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. It is not seen from the appellate order of the first appellate authority that a point regarding the non-compliance of the provisions of section 14 (8) is taken before the first appellate authority.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader, on the other hands relied on the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Kerala Distilleries & Allied Products (P.) Ltd. (1992) KLJ TC 285 and contended that this Court, while considering the revisions under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, can only scrutinise as to whether the Tribunal has decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. In other words, the question of law now sought to be advanced by the assessee should have been specifically taken up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal should have either failed to decide the same or decided the same erroneously. This is really begging the question as to whether the point now urged before this Court has really been urged before the Tribunal. We have already found that the assessee has not urged this question before the Tribunal and therefore, it cannot be said that question No. 3 raised by the assessee in this revision arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal nor can it be said that the Appellate Tribunal has decided the question erroneously or failed to decide any question of law.