Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Kerala Rep By Additional Chief ... vs Prinz Residency
2024 Latest Caselaw 5857 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5857 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala Rep By Additional Chief ... vs Prinz Residency on 23 February, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
 FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                     RP NO. 260 OF 2024
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 40193/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                           KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT IN WPC:

    1     STATE OF KERALA REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
          TAXES ROOM NO.396,1ST FLOOR,
          NEAR SOUTH CONFERENCE HALL, MAIN BLOCK,
          SECRETARIATE , THIRVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

    2     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, STAE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
          DEPARTMENT, ELANJIPALAM , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006

    3     JOINT COMMISSIONER[APPEALS]
          STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
          ELANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006

    4     STATE TAX OFFICER [RECOVERY]
          OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
          STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
          ELANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673006

          BY SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFIQ, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:

          PRINZ RESIDENCY
          NEAR CHENGOTTUKAVU BRIDGE MELUR PO KOYILANDY,
          REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR- MIDHUN CHANDRAN.,
          PIN - 673306

          SRI.MAYANKUTTY

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 260 OF 2024

                                  2




               Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024

                           ORDER

1. Heard Mr. A. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Special

Government Pleader for the review petitioners and Mr.

Mayankutty Mather for the respondents.

2. This review petition has been filed seeking review

of the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 passed in the

batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C) No.40193 of 2022.

3. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties, vide the final Judgment and Order

under review, held that in cases where the return were filed

on or before 31.03.2022 and turnover tax was cleared on or

before 30.04.2022 by the FL3 lincencees, for the period

from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to

25.09.2021 for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22,

they would not be liable to pay interest for delayed filing of RP NO. 260 OF 2024

the returns and payment of turnover tax @ 5% on their

parcel sales authorised by the Government during the Covid

lock down period. This Court considered all the documents

which were placed on record and the submissions of both

sides.

4. Mr. A. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Special

Government Pleader, however submits that there has

occurred an error apparent on the face of the record which

occasioned the review petitioners to seek review of the

Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Court.

He further submits that the reduction of tax from 10% to 5%

was not limited only in respect of the sale effected by the Bar

attached Hotels during the Covid lock down period but, the

exemption was granted for the period from 2014-15 to 2015-

16 as per the Cabinet Note placed on record as Annexure (A)

by which the decision was taken to amend Section 7A of the RP NO. 260 OF 2024

Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The exemption from

payment of tax up to 5% by the Bar attached Hotels on their

parcel sales, would not mean that they were not required to

pay the tax @ 10%, but they could have claimed refund of the

5% tax and, therefore, they were liable to pay the interest on

delayed payment of turnover tax. He further submits that

the proposal to reduce the tax from 10% to 5% in the cabinet

decision has to be considered in that respect. Mr. A.

Muhammed Rafiq has also placed reliance on Annexure (B)

of the review petition which is the decision of the Cabinet.

Relevant portion of Annexure (B) reads as under;

          "Decision :     Proposal     (1)   of    Note

          accepted.

(2) the suggestion in the note was considered. It has been decided to extend the time for filing of the returns till March 31, 2022 and till April 30, 2022 for payment of arrears."

5. On the other hand, Mr. K. I. Mayankutty Mather, RP NO. 260 OF 2024

learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

the Annexure (A) document placed on record i.e. the note

put up before the Cabinet for consideration regarding the

reduction of turnover tax for the period during lock down

from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to

25.09.2021 is specific that the Bar attached Hotels and shops

were required to pay 5% of the turnover tax as is applicable

in respect of the retail outlets run by the Beverages

Corporation. In pursuance to the said cabinet note, the

cabinet has taken the decision and, thereafter, Exhibit P-2

was issued notifying the rate of turnover tax.

5.1. Once the notification was issued, the respondents

herein have remitted the tax, as per the time extended for

filing the return and remittance of tax. This Court has

considered every aspect of the matter, the submissions and

documents placed on record. There is no error apparent on RP NO. 260 OF 2024

the face of the record which requires this Court to review its

well considered Judgment dated 30.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.

40193 of 2022 and connected matters.

6. I have considered the submissions. Review

jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where

there an is error apparent on the face of the record. This

Court has considered each and every document and the

submissions while rendering the Judgment dated 30.11.2023

in W.P.(C) No.40193 of 2022 and connected matters.

Furthermore, these documents were not part of the

pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal.

There has to be finality to a litigation. This Court, based on

the submissions, documents and evidences, has rendered the

Judgment sought to be reviewed. Therefore, I find no error

apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court

to reconsider this Judgment under review. There is no RP NO. 260 OF 2024

substance in this review petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDGE

AS RP NO. 260 OF 2024

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE [A] TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE PLACED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IN RESPECT OF NO. 201/B3/2021/TD

ANNEXURE [B] TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF CABINET MEETING OF MINISTERS, HELD ON 23.02.2023 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION THE RELEVANT PORTION IN ENGLISH

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter