Appeal against an order declining interference with VTAT's conditional penalty payment. Bench refused to interfere and directed appellant to pay amounts in monthly installments starting Jan 2019.
Appeal refused. Direction to satisfy penalty amounts in monthly installments starting from 3rd January 2019.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
W.A. No.2465 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.38169/2018 OF THE HIGHCOURT OF KERALA DATED 29.11.2018
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED SHERIEF
AGED 52 YEARS S/O.BADARUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.BAZ HOME APPLIANCES, PAZHAYATTINKUZHI, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM- 691 001.
2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SUQAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 691 001.
3 KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDL.BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.2465 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The appeal is from the order of the learned Single Judge, which declined interference to the conditional order passed by the Tribunal, but granted instalments to pay up the same. The appellant submits that the penalty imposed is excessive and that he has financial difficulties in
paying up the same even as per the condition imposed by the Tribunal.
2. We notice from the order of the Tribunal
that, even before the Tribunal, the only contention was that the penalty was excessive and that suppression would be only to the extent as seen from the statement prepared by the appellant/ assessee themselves. The suppression hence is admitted and there could be no reduction made on the basis of a statement produced by the assessee, without any substantiation thereof. In fact the Tribunal had directed deposit of 20% penalty in one of the appeals and 10% in the other appeal. The
W.A. No.2465 of 2018 3
learned Single Judge also refused to exercise discretion and we do not think there is any unreasonableness for us to interfere in an appeal. The learned Senior Counsel also points out that the
only contention taken before the learned Single Judge was of financial expediency, on which consideration the learned Single Judge had granted four monthly instalments.
3. We refuse to interfere with the same and
direct the appellants to satisfy the amounts in monthly installments starting from the 3rd of January, 2019 and continued on every 3rd of three successive months.
The above appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE
sp/20/12/18
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
Mohammed Sherief
The Asst. Commissioner Commercial Taxes Special Circle, Kollam
The Intelligence Officer SUQAD No.1, Department of Commercial Taxes, Kollam
Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal Addl. Bench, Thiruvananthapuram
K. Vinod Chandran
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
