Dismissed

M.P.Ibrahimkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2011OT.Rev/17/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the Other Tax Revision regarding a penalty levied under the KVAT Act for unaccounted brick business. Upholding the penalty, the bench noted that findings based on bank account details and construction company ledgers justified the levy, which was limited to the actual tax evaded.

What did the court decide?

The Other Tax Revision cases were dismissed, upholding the penalty order.

M.P.Ibrahimkutty Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933

¶6

OT.Rev.No. 17 of 2011()

¶7

----------------------TA.136/2009 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASEESSEE:

¶9

¶10

M.P.IBRAHIMKUTTY, MULLASSERY, BISMILLAH WIRE CUT BRICKS, NEDUVANNUR, CHOWARA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶15

BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ

¶16

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, ALONG WITH OTRV NO.18 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

APPENDIX (OTRV 17/2011)

¶18

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DT.15.5.2008. ANNEXURE II: COPIES OF LOAN AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (COLLECTIVELY). ANNEXURE III: COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT.24.2.09. ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT.13.8.2010.

¶19

TRUE COPY

¶20

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶21

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶22

.................................................................... O.T. Rev. Nos.17 & 18 of 2011

¶23

.................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶26

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for respondents. Orders under challenge are penalty levied under Section 67 of the KVAT Act for unaccounted business carried on in brick without payment of tax.

¶27

After hearing both sides and after going through the orders what we notice is that the department collected specific details with regard to cheques received and cash remittance made in the Bank Account maintained by the petitioner. The department also collected information from the construction companies wherein their ledger accounts show payment to petitioner as brick manufacturer and supplier of bricks to them. In view of the clear findings of fact, we do not find any justification to interfere with the levy of penalty, particularly because penalty itself is limited to the actual tax evaded

¶28

¶29

and the turnover assessed is based on the credit shown in the Bank.

¶30

Consequently O.T. Revision cases are dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶33

Sd/P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge

¶34

True copy

¶35

P.S. to Judge

¶36

pms

M.P.Ibrahimkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Ibrahimkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi Amma Vs the Secretary, Velimon Service Co-Op.Ban

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam. Vs M/S.Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.,Kottayam.

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin Vs Tata Ceramics Ltd., Cochin

Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam Vs T.O.Abraham, Thiruvalla

V.K.Muzamil and Another Vs K.S.E.Board and Another

The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committe Vs Guruvayur Devaswom Employees' Associatio