ALUKKAS JEWELLARY Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Almost a common question of law is involved in all these cases, though something else is also there with reference to the issue projected in W.A.No.1207 of 2007. In the said circumstances, all these cases are taken up and heard together, although arising from separate verdicts. The Writ Appeals arise from two separate judgments passed by the learned Single Judge on the same day, wherein the assessee is stated as aggrieved as to the interference declined by the learned Single Judge, but for a slight modification with regard to the 'interest' payable, while declaring that the amendment brought about during the middle of the year will have effect from the date of bringing it in to force and that the liability to satisfy tax after the amendment will be based on the enhanced rate. In the STR preferred by the State, the question of law raised is whether the Tribunal was right in declaring that the amendment brought about during the middle of the year was to have application only from the date of amendment and not in respect of the period prior to the said date, since the application for amendment was preferred only after the date of amendment. The assessee is same in both the appeals, while it is a different assessee in the STR.

(2.) Heard Mr. George Joseph who appeared for the assessee in the appeals and Mr. Govindan, the learned Government Pleader for the State/Revenue in those cases and in the STR.136 of 2008, Mr. Rajakannan appeared for the assessee in the Revision Petition filed by the State.

(3.) W.A.1644 of 2009 is taken as the lead case. The pleadings and proceedings are referred to as given in the said case, except where it is separately mentioned, depending upon the context.