IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1613 of 2007(P)
1. M/S. KUNHIKANNAN JEWELLERY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :26/11/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 1613 of 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 26th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the proceedings,
regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 45 A of the KGST
Act with respect to the assessment year 2000-’01.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm, doing jewelery business
and is an assessee on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes, Special Circle, Kannur. It is stated that the petitioner was
maintaining proper books of account and was doing business in
accordance with the relevant provisions of law. However, there
occurred a search and seizure in the premises of the petitioner on
05.08.2000, whereby some incriminating materials/stock were detected.
Pursuant to which, notice was issued, referring to the suppressed turn
over and proposing to impose penalty under Section 45 A. After
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent
passed Ext. P1 order imposing the penalty, against which a statutory
revision was filed before the second respondent. After considering the
merits involved, the revision petition was dismissed, as borne by Ext.
P2 order, whereupon the petitioner preferred second revision before the
third respondent, who also declined interference, as borne by Ext. P3
W.P. (C) No. 1613 of 2007
: 2 :
order dated 25.10.2006 which forms the subject matter of challenge in
this Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the alleged
quantity of the commodity stated as suppressed, was only 10,000
gms., while the penalty imposed is the ‘maximum’ being double amount
of tax payable. The facts and figures have been meticulously analyzed
by the departmental authorities at three different levels and this being
the position, this Court is not justified in proceeding to have any fact
adjudication. The only question now arises for consideration before this
Court is, whether the authorities concerned have exceeded their
jurisdiction or whether their action is wrong or perverse in any manner ?
5. On examining the said position, in the light of the materials on
record, this Court finds that the question can be answered in in the
negative. The course pursued by the concerned respondents does not
call for any interference. Accordingly, interference is declined and the
writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that, this will not stand in way
of the petitioner from availing the benefit under the ‘Amnesty Scheme’,
which is stated as extended till 31.12.2010.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd