Remanded

P.Ramachandran v. the Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

Kerala HC8 Dec 2014WP(C)/12340/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 45A of the KGST Act, holding that calculating penalty based on estimated turnover was unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Intelligence Officer for fresh consideration after giving a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders imposing penalty were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the 3rd respondent within three months after giving an opportunity of hearing.

P.Ramachandran Vs the Commissioner,Commercial Taxes — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12340 of 2011 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

P.RAMACHANDRAN, GLOBAL CASHEWS, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.PIN-691 001

¶12

3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, KOLLAM. PIN-691 001

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM. PIN-691 001

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN PULICKAPARAMBIL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).NO.12340/2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

¶21

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 23/6/2008

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 24/4/2009

¶23

P4 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27/11/2010

¶24

P5 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 1995-96 DATED 25/2/2011

¶25

P6 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 DATED 25/2/2011

¶26

P7 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 1997-98 DATED 25/2/2011

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

W.P(C). No. 12340 of 2011

¶33

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2014

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved of penalty imposed upon him in respect of the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 under Section 45A of the KGST Act to an extent of nearly `1,13,29,628/-. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was doing business dealing with 'cashew' during the aforesaid years. There was a surprise inspection at the premises by the 3^rd respondent on 16.01.1998 and some documents were seized. By the end of 1998 the petitioner met with an accident and his condition was critical, by virtue of which, he was not in a position to produce the documents when the same was called for in the year 2000. The proceedings came to be finalised imposing penalty with respect to the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. On challenging the same, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded. This led to Ext.P1 common order for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98. Though the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1^st revisional authority, interference was declined and the revision came to be dismissed

¶36

WP(c). No.12340 of 2011 2

¶37

as per Ext.P2 order. Met with the situation the petitioner approached the 2^nd revisional authority ie; the 1^st respondent herein, who passed Ext.P4 order, virtually confirming the penalty which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶38

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent seeking to sustain the course and proceedings.

¶39

Heard both the sides in detail.

¶40

During the course of hearing the learned counsel for

¶41

the petitioner submits that, the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent fixing the penalty upon the petitioner on the basis of estimated turnover is per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects. In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in S.T. Revision No.77/2012 dated 31.07.2012 and also the decision in Yeses International V. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 454) , the learned counsel further submits that maximum penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner which could not have been there, in view of the ruling rendered by another Division Bench of this Court reported in P.D. Sudhi V. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-Tax and Sales Tax, Mattancherry and Others (1992 (85) STC 337) holding

¶42

WP(c). No.12340 of 2011

¶43

¶44

that punishment has to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

¶45

During the course of hearing it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the assessment proceedings were completed earlier. But subsequently, the very same officer, who was holding the Office of the 3^rd respondent came to occupy the chair of the 'Assessing Authority', when he reopened the assessment and made exorbitant additions, mulcting huge liability upon the petitioner. On challenging the same, the 1^st appellate authority modified the same to some extent. But the petitioner moved the Tribunal by way of 2^nd appeal and after considering the merits involved, the Tribunal as per Ext.P3 order dated 24.04.2009 set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It is stated that the proceedings are still to be finalised. Even though the petitioner produced a copy of Ext.P3 order before the 1^st respondent the same was refused to be looked into and the proceedings were finalised in a mechanical manner and hence the challenge.

¶46

The learned Government Pleader however points out that the idea and understanding of the petitioner that penalty

¶47

WP(c). No.12340 of 2011

¶48

¶49

could not have been imposed for want of finalsiation of the assessment is not at all correct or sustainable. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision reported in J&J Timbers V. Intelligence Officer (IB) (2010 (18) KTR 203) . The learned Government Pleader is perfectly right in saying so, as the assessment and penalty are two different streams and it is open for the concerned authority to consider and finalise the proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of law based on the actual facts and figures.

¶50

The question to be considered herein is whether the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner could be held as sustainable. Undisputedly, the penalty has been quantified by the 3^rd respondent based on 'estimated turnover', which cannot be so, in view of the law already declared by the Division Bench of this Court and also in U.K.Monu Timbers V. State of Kerala (2012 (3) KHC 111 (DB). This Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered.

¶51

Accordingly, the impugned orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner are set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the 3^rd respondent. This shall be done after

¶52

WP(c). No.12340 of 2011

¶53

¶54

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶56

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3^rd respondent for further steps.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶59

P.Ramachandran v. the Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramachandran v. the Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sainudheen.a.M Vs Rajamanikkam

Peter Vs P.v.Gangadharan

Parvathy Fashion Jewellers Vs State of Kerala

Auria Keim Vs Padmakumar IPS

Jayan Vs the Authorised Officer

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs the Principal Agricultural Officer