High Court Kerala High Court

Polakulath Tourist Home vs The Intelligence Officer on 22 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Polakulath Tourist Home vs The Intelligence Officer on 22 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16620 of 2003(C)


1. POLAKULATH TOURIST HOME,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMSSIONER,

3. THE COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.S.K.DEVI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

 Dated :22/07/2008

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                            W.P.(C) No.16620 of 2003
                  ....................................................................
                     Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008.

                                         JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. The

petitioner’s bar hotel was inspected by the Sales Tax Intelligence Squad on

12.1.2001. During inspection, massive unaccounted transactions were

noticed. The Intelligence Officer verified the stock variation, both excess

and shortage and levied penalty at twice the amount of tax attributable to the

unaccounted transactions estimated by him. Even though in first revision

the findings are confirmed, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the penalty

holding that evasion is only in respect of TOT. However, the

Commissioner in suo moto revision under Section 37 reversed the order of

the Deputy Commissioner and restored the original penalty. The second

revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the very same order. It is

against this common order the petitioner has filed this W.P.

2. On going through the orders of the three authorities I find that all

of them concurrently found that there was unaccounted purchase and sale of

liquor by the petitioner. The only organisation supplying liquor through

proper channel in the State is Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd.

2

which is a Government of Kerala undertaking. I do not think there can be

any difficulty for the petitioner to maintain proper accounts for the purchase

and sale of liquor when it is sourced only through Government. Obviously

excess noticed may represent liquor sourced from elsewhere or otherwise

purchase bills and other records should have been available. It is seen that

besides excess stock noticed, there was substantial quantity of shortage of

liquor also. According to the petitioner, accounts could not be maintained

properly because of the large business on account of temple festival going

on in the area. Having regard to the contentions raised and since both

shortage and excess were noticed, I feel some leniency is called for.

Accordingly, penalty levied is reduced to one and a half times the tax

amount as against two times levied and sustained by the Commissioner.

W.P. is disposed of as above.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms