Shaji P. Chaly, J.

This revision is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.06.2012 in T.A.No.(VAT) No.974/2011 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision are stated hereunder: The revision petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of outdoor marketing media at Kottayam. The advertisements are displayed in hoardings for the above purpose. The appellant acquires land on lease in various places in the State of Kerala, and structures are erected on the property taken on lease. Thereafter, hoardings are fixed on this structure and it is let out to various companies for advertising their products. The revision petitioner receives rental charges for letting out the hoardings. During the year 2007-2008, the revision petitioner received rental charges amounting to Rs.36,70,983/-.

3. The Assessing Officer held that the revision petitioner is liable to pay tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short), on rental charges received during the aforesaid return period. In arriving at the conclusion, the Assessing Officer placed reliance on the decision of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in 'Selvel Advertising Private Ltd. and Another v. Commercial Tax Officer' [(1993) 89 STC 1] and BSNL v. Union of India reported in (2006) 14 KTR 115 = [(2006) 3 SCC 1]. Therefore, after making addition of 10% for probable omission and suppression to the rental amount received during the year, the total taxable turnover was fixed at Rs.40,38,081/- and the turnover was assessed at the rate of 4% as provided under the Act.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which affirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer and held that the revision petitioner was liable to tax under the Act on rental charges received for letting out the hoardings by applying the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others' [(2006) 14 KTR 115] = [(2006) 3 SCC 1].

5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, after taking into account the elaborate contentions put forth by the revision petitioner and after evaluating the various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the High Courts, came to the conclusion that the order of the First Appellate Authority holding the revision petitioner liable to tax under the Act was correct. It is thus aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal this revision is preferred by the assessee.

6. The following questions of law are raised by the revision petitioner before us:

"i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case since structures which are permanently attached and fastened on earth are immovable property, can such structures be considered as 'goods' within the meaning of the said term under the provisions of the KVAT Act.

ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding the Revision Petitioner liable to pay tax on the ground that effective control of the hoarding was with the hirer even though the custody of hoarding was with the Revision Petitioner? Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the custody of the hoarding was with the Revision Petitioner and the effective control of the hoarding was with the hirer?

iii) The Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding the view without properly appreciating the transaction and terms of the charges received by the revision petitioner is liable to be taxed under Section 6(1)(c) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the reason stated by it?

iv) Is not the decision of the Appellate Tribunal unsustainable in law in the light of the various decisio