I.K.C.Metel Unit vs Sales Tax Officer on 23 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 14772 of 2001(H)



1. I.K.C.METEL UNIT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. SALES TAX OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :23/05/2008

 O R D E R
                  C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  --------------------------------------------
                        O.P. NO. 14772 OF 2001
                  --------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging Exts. P6 and P7 orders whereunder

revised demand is raised for the tax payable under the Compounding

Scheme under Section 7(b) of the KGST Act for stone crushing

machines. Even though petitioner declared the size of one machine as

14×7″ the Intelligence Officer attached to the Investigating wing of the

Department verified the machine and found that the petitioner mis-

declared the size of the machine and the machine had higher size which

attracts tax under compounding scheme at Rs. 25,000/- per year as

against Rs. 12,500/- demanded under the original order. It is this

mistake that is corrected under the impugned orders. Even though

counsel for the petitioner contended that the size of the machine is only

as shown in the original assessment order, I do not think this Court can

sort out the problem, which requires physical verification. O.P. is

accordingly disposed of leaving freedom to the petitioner to file appeal

or revision before the appellate or revisional authority and it is for the

2

appellate or revisional authority to verify the facts and decide the

matter. I make it clear that if the petitioner still persists the fact by

raising the matter before the appellate or revisional authority, and if it

is found to be otherwise, penalty should be levied on the petitioner for

trying to establish bogus case. Since O.P. is pending for seven years,

petitioner is granted three weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment to file appeal or revision before the appellate or

revisional authority.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3