Original petition challenging confirmation of penalty under Section 45A of KGST Act for unregistered business transactions was dismissed as devoid of merit due to missing supporting documents like sale bills.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1929
OP.No. 7407 of 2003(F)
PETITIONER:
M/S. STELLA AGENCIES, ATHANI, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PAULY GEORGE, MANAGING PARTNER.
BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER ON CMP13089 OF 2003 IN OP 7407 OF 2003
DISMISSED
26.11.2007 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MATTANCHERRY DATED 30.10.96
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DATED 29.1.1999
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.2000
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER, MATTANCHERRY DATED 11.8.2000
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19.3.2002
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JAY BEE TRADERS, ALUVA.
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION, ALUVA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
O.P. NO. 7407 OF 2003
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 whereunder the Commissioner has confirmed penalty of Rs. 45,000/- levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act for the year 1994-95. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader and I have gone through the impugned orders. Petitioner is a firm which is a registered dealer under the KGST Act. During inspection, business transactions noted in the letter-head was seized, besides stock variation was found. Penalty originally levied was subject matter of revision and after one round of remand, original penalty of Rs. 45,000/- was increased to Rs. 3,33,616/-. In the second round remand, the same amount of penalty was confirmed. In revision against the revised order, Deputy Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs. 45,000/-, which was confirmed by the commissioner, against which this O.P. is filed. The explanation offered by the petitioner is quite interesting, because, it is seen that while firm was doing business, parallel business was carried on by the Managing Partner in a
2
clandestine manner without taking registration. In fact petitioner's explanation was considered in detail by the Commissioner. However, the explanation was rejected because documents produced namely letters from customers and suppliers did not contain any relevant details, such as date of sale of goods, bill number, date of bill or even value of goods. Even if petitioner's case that supplies were made by others based on orders canvassed by the petitioner and petitioner received only commission is true, evidence is required such as sale bill, payment of tax by the suppliers, etc. In the absence of any of these documents, I do not think petitioner can claim exemption from penalty, more so when the transactions in the letter head are admitted by the petitioners as sales canvassed by the petitioner. Even though counsel for the petitioner referred to the Tribunal's order in TA No. 694 of 2003 dated 28.2.2004, remanding the assessment matter in appeal, I do not think Tribunal's order helps the petitioner to get out of penalty. O.P. is accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable for penalty for not declaring taxable supplies made in a clandestine manner without registration.
Whether lack of detailed documents (bill numbers, dates, amounts) in customer/supplier letters exempts the petitioner from penalty.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Stella Agencies
Intelligence Officer, Squad No. 1, Ernakulam
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
