ST. Mary’s Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer (INT.) (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition seeking review of its judgment dated 06.11.2025 in WP(C) No.42368 of 2022. The petitioners contended that the earlier judgment failed to grant their prayer for certified copies of a computer statement bearing Recovery No.1(12)-KVAT-SAR, which they stated was relied upon in penalty proceedings.
The Court examined the earlier judgment and found that, during the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel had specifically submitted that the relief was being restricted to the second prayer, seeking certified copies of the shop inspection reports, despite the original prayer also seeking the computer statement.
Based on that submission, the Court had directed the first respondent to provide certified copies of shop inspection reports bearing Nos. SAR-497970, SAR-497971 and SAR-497969. Since the petitioners had voluntarily restricted their relief during the hearing, the Court found no reason to review the earlier judgment. The review petition was accordingly dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The above review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 06.11.2025 in WP(C) No.42368 of 2022, contending that the reliefs seeking issuance of certified copies of the computer statement bearing recovery No.1(12)-KVAT-SAR has not been granted by this Court. Paragraph 10 of the review petition reads as follows:
“10. It is respectfully submitted that in the Writ Petition, the petitioners had specifically sought a direction to the 1st respondent to furnish copies of both the Shop Inspection Reports and the Computer Statement bearing Recovery No.1(12)-KVATSAR, which are documents admittedly relied upon by the respondents in the penalty proceedings. However, while disposing of the Writ Petition by Ann. A1 judgment, this Hon’ble Court granted relief only to the extent of directing issuance of copies of the Shop Inspection Reports and did not pass any order with respect to the request for a copy of the aforesaid Computer Statement. The omission to bring this aspect to the notice of this Hon’ble Court at the relevant time occurred due to an inadvertent oversight. It is most humbly submitted that there was never any intention on the part of the petitioners or their counsel to give up or abandon the specific prayer seeking a copy of the Computer Statement, which continues to be a material document relied upon by the respondent and is essential for the petitioners to effectively respond to the proceedings initiated against them.”
2. I have heard the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of Annexure A1 judgment, under review, would reveal that during the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made a submission that he is restricting his relief to the second prayer alone and seeks for a direction to the respondents to provide certified copies of the shop inspection reports, though he has also sought for issuance of the computer statement. It is taking note of the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this Court directed the 1st respondent in the writ petition to provide the certified copies of the shop inspection reports bearing Nos.SAR-497970, SAR-497971 and SAR-497969 to the petitioner.
3. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have restricted their relief only for a direction to the respondents to provide certified copies of the shop inspection reports, I find absolutely no reason for reviewing the judgment.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
