The Kerala High Court rejected the Revenue's appeal against a Single Judge order quashing a penalty confirmation order in a sales tax penalty matter. The Court held the Single Judge was correct in setting aside the revisional authority's order.
The writ appeal against the Single Judge's order允许ing the original petition (OP 1062 of 1997) is rejected.
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
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2007 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1929
WA.No. 885 of 2006()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2005 IN O.P. 1062 OF 1997.
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR TAXES SHRI V.V. ASOKAN.
RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER:
S. UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEDHAR JEWELLERY, ADOOR.
BY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
W.A. NO. 885 OF 2006
Dated this the 8th June, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J .
Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in O.P.No,.1062 of 1997, the Revenue is before us in this appeal.
Petitioner in the original petition is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. He is a dealer in jewellery. His place of business was inspected by the Intelligence Officer, the third respondent in the original petition, on 5.3.1994 and on such inspection, he noticed that the assessee had written the Day Book only up to 3.3.1994 and also that there was excess jewellery which was not reflected in the books of accounts maintained. Being of the opinion that the assessee has committed an offence under the provisions of the Act, had issued a show cause notice under Section 45A(1)(b) of the Act, dated 16.4.1994, directing the petitioner/respondent herein to show cause why penalty as provided under Section 45A should not be imposed.
W.A.. NO. 885 OF 2006
:: 2 ::
deposited the jewellery under the scheme. Pursuant to the direction so issued, the assessee had examined one Smt.Chandini Nair, and also had produced the affidavit of Smt.Chandini Nair in support of the oral evidence.
W.A.. NO. 885 OF 2006
:: 3 ::
original petition and has quashed the orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax dated 19.11.1996. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said judgment passed by the learned single Judge is the subject matter of this writ appeal.
W.A.. NO. 885 OF 2006
:: 4 ::
authority. Only if the order passed by the revisional authority is of such a nature that it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the revisional authority could have initiated proceedings under Section 45A(5) of the Act. Taking these aspects of the matter into consideration the learned single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in setting aside the orders passed by the revisional authority (Ext.P4), dated 19.11.1996. The findings and conclusions reached by the learned single Judge, in our opinion, are neither erroneous nor arbitrary. Therefore, interference of the said order is not called for. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L. DATTU) Chief Justice
(K.T. SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/DK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the single Judge was justified in quashing the revisional authority order under Section 45A(5) of the Act.
Whether the revisional authority had material to initiate suo motu proceedings given the assessee's explanation was accepted.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
The Board of Revenue (Taxes), Thiruvananthapuram Rep. by its Secretary
The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pathanamthitta
The Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Pathanamthitta
The State of Kerala Rep. by the Chief Secretary
S. Unnikrishnan Sreedhar Jewellery Adoor
H.L. DATTU
K.T. SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
