Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Kerala Represented By ... vs Sivarajendran V
2024 Latest Caselaw 8653 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8653 Ker
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2024

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala Represented By ... vs Sivarajendran V on 27 March, 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
    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                         RP NO. 239 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2023 IN WP(C) NO.30262 OF 2022 OF
                        HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

    1       STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
            ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY(TAXES),
            ROOM NO. 396, FIRST FLOOR,
            NEAR SOUTH CONFERENCE HALL, MAIN BLOCK,
            SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GPO, PIN - 695001.

    2       THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
            SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
            TAX TOWER,2ND FLOOR, KARAMANA P. O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002.

    3       COMMISSIONER,
            KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, 9TH FLOOR,
            TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P. O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002.

            BY ADV.
               SRI. MUHAMED RAFIQ - SPL. GP


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

            SIVARAJENDRAN V
            PROPRIETOR,HOTEL AMALA RESIDENCY AND HOTEL NANDANAM
            PARK,POWER HOUSE ROAD, PAZHAVANGADI ,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011.

            BY ADV.
               SRI. K. I. MAYANKUTTY MATHER


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 239 OF 2024

                                       2


                       DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
                              --------------------------
                            RP No. 239 of 2024
                                           In
                          W.P.(C) No. 30262 of 2022
                                -------------------------
                     Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024

                                     ORDER

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

Pleader for the review petitioners and Mr. K. I. Mayankutty Mather for

the respondent.

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. 30262 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 the

returns and payment of turnover tax @ 5% on their parcel sales

authorised by the Government during the Covid lock down period. RP NO. 239 OF 2024

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 occassioned 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 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 RP NO. 239 OF 2024

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, learned

Counsel appearing for the respondent 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 respondent herein has

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 the face of the record which requires this Court to RP NO. 239 OF 2024

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

30262 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. 30262 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 substance in this review petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn RP NO. 239 OF 2024

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE PLACED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IN RESPECT OF FILE NO 201/B3/201/TD

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CABINET MEETING OF MINISTERS HELD ON 23-02-2022

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF PROCEEDINGS, CABINET MEETING OF MINISTERS HELD ON 23-02-2022

 
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