S.K.Purushothaman vs Intelligence Officer on 20 March, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 12313 of 2001(N)



1. S.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

 Dated :20/03/2007

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                    -----------------------------------

                        O.P. No. 12313 of 2001

                         -------------------------

             Dated, this the 20th day of March, 2007


                              J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

2. Order under challenge is Ext.P3 issued under Sec. 37 of

the KGST Act, whereunder the Commissioner reversed the first

revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner reducing penalty

levied under Sec. 45A and restored the original penalty. The

petitioner was involved in transport of consignment of rubber

sheets from Kerala to Karnataka without payment of tax. A

penalty of Rs. 36,000/- was levied by the Intelligence Officer,

which was reduced in first revision to Rs. 9,000/-. The petitioner

did not contest the penalty sustained in first revision. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amount is

already paid. However, Commissioner initiated suo motu

revisional proceedings and reversed the order of the first

revisional authority and restored the order of the Intelligence

Officer. Ext.P3 is the order of restoration of Ext.P1 order,

O.P.No. 12313/2001

-Page numbers-

wherein penalty levied is Rs.36,000/-.

3. Even though there is no scope for interference with levy

of penalty, which is confirmed in revision, I feel the order of the

Commissioner restoring the penalty originally levied is not

justified. In the first place, tax is determined based on estimate

and it is seen that for the purpose of reckoning tax, security

deposit is also added to tax amount, which itself is the sum total

of local tax and CST. In the circumstance, order of the Deputy

Commissioner reducing the penalty of Rs. 9,000/- is quite

justified. I therefore allow the Original Petition by quashing

Ext.P5 and restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

This Original Petition is allowed as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

jg