IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26275 of 2005(C)
1. A.PUSHPAMMA, AGED 45, S/O.SELVARAJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.DEVADANAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
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. 26275 OF 2005
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order, whereunder offence was
compounded on payment of compounding fee of Rs. 2 lakhs which is
remitted by the petitioner in two instalments in March, 2005.
Compounding is under Section 47 of the KGST Act and by
compounding the offence, petitioner has avoided prosecution. Besides
this Government Pleader submitted that penalty under Section 45A is
also not levied on the petitioner even though technically there is no bar
against levying penalty. In other words, by making application for
compounding and by remitting the compounding fee, petitioner has
avoided prosection and penalty, which respondents were free to initiate
against the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that compounding is not
voluntarily done and petitioner was compelled to do it under threat. I
do not think the nature of this allegation can be considered without
referring to records, particularly the compounding application made by
the petitioner, orders issued thereon and the subsequent conduct of the
petitioner in making payment. It is seen that the inspection in which
2
irregularities were noticed was conducted on 7.2.2003, notice was
issued to the petitioner on 17.2.2005, compounding application was
made by the petitioner on 25.2.2005, compounding fee of Rs. 2 lakhs
was remitted in two instalment of Rs. 1 lakh each on 11.3.2005 and
28.3.2005 and it is thereafter on 25.4.2005 that Ext.P3 proceedings are
issued accepting the compounding. Petitioner has filed this Writ
Petition after three months of passing of Ext.P3 order. In any case,
since the allegation cannot be decided without reference to evidence
disclosed by records, conduct of parties, etc., I give an opportunity to
the petitioner to file revision petition against the compounding order
before the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner is granted six weeks’ time
to file revision along with a copy of this judgment, and if any such
revision is filed against compounding, revisional authority will
entertain the same, call for the records and decide the same on merits.
W.P. is disposed of as above.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
3