IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 25 of 2007()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHAINROOP CHHAJER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
....................................................................
S.T. Rev. No.25 of 2007 &
C.M. Appln. No.56 of 2007
....................................................................
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Inspite of repeated notice, nobody has turned to appear for the
respondent. We have gone through the impugned order and have heard
the Government Pleader for the State which filed the revision case.
The assessment of the respondent for the year 1998-99 was originally
completed under Section 17(4) of the KGST Act. However, later it
was noticed that in respect of transport of a consignment respondent
was made to deposit a security amount of Rs.7,925/- which was later
converted into penalty. Besides this, there is another Crime case also
involving transport of another consignment leading to levy of penalty
of Rs.6,100/-. Based on these two instances, the Assessing Officer
reopened the assessment completed under Section 17(4). Even though
in first appeal the challenge against jurisdiction to reopen assessment
was turned down, the first appellate authority granted quantum relief.
2
However, when the party filed second appeal, Tribunal held that
proceedings under Section 19(1) is not tenable in the case because
original assessment was made under Section 17(4) of the KGST Act.
We do not think we should go into the merits of the case because
department has not been able to get even the correct address of the
party who closed down business probably years back. The tax effect
involved is only around Rs.15,000/-. We, therefore, reject the delay
condonation petition as well as the revision case. However, the legal
question raised by the department is left open to be raised in
appropriate case.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
V.K.MOHANAN
Judge
pms