SMT.ANICE MATHEW V. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF C.T

WP(C)/13400/2006

AI Insights

The case involves Anice Mathew, the proprietor of St. Marys Wood Works, who challenged the penalty imposed on him under Section 45A of the KGST Act. The penalty was initially imposed due to discrepancies noted by the tax authorities in the business transactions of the petitioner. Despite multiple appeals and revisions, the penalty was upheld at various stages, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court. The court examined the arguments presented, including claims of violation of natural justice and improper appreciation of facts by the authorities. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the penalty, allowing only a limited time for the petitioner to settle the remaining dues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727053 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: KGST Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S SUDHEESHKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S EASWARAN
• Keywords: Coercive Proceedings; Natural Justice; Penalty; Revision petition; Wood industry
• Section: 45A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/15TH PHALGUNA 1933 WP(C).No. 13400 of 2006 (T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANICE MATHEW, ST.MARYS WOOD WORKS, KOLAPRA, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATTAPPANA. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. SUDHEESHKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.13400/2006-T: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2225051/2003-04 DTD. 26/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 09/09/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.STRP 53/04 DTD. 09/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DTD. 26/03/2005. EXT.P.5A: COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DTD. 22/12/2005 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.5250/-. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R3.16228/05/CT DTD. 05/04/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/01/2005 IN STA NO.1035/04 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/02/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUDAYATHOOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J. = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 = = = = = = = == = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of March, 2012 J U D G M E N T The penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 45A of the KGST Act to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- vide Ext.P1, which was confirmed by Ext.P3 in the first round of revision and then in the second round as per Ext.P6, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a wood industry and in the course of business, some discrepancy/inconsistency was noted by the concerned authorities, which led to imposition of penalty under Section 45A of the Act as per Ext.P1. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 revision petition before the first Revisional Authority, where interference was declined as per Ext.P3. Inspite of filing further revision as per Ext.P4 and the pendency of the same, coercive proceedings were W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 2 taken, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No. 32578/2005, which was disposed of directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the amount due, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay and the second Revisional Authority was directed to finalise the revision. Ext.P5 is the challan, showing the satisfaction of the condition. Pursuant to the above judgment, Ext.P4 revision petition filed before the first respondent was considered and Ext.P6 order was passed declining interference, which forms the subject matter of challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vital contentions taken by the petitioner have not been properly adverted to. It is further stated that the principles of natural justice have also been violated, which has very much adversely affected by decision making process and the accrued rights of the petitioner with regard to the challenge involved. The learned counsel also submits that the exorbitant 'assessment' made by the assessing authority was intercepted by the Appellate Authority as borne by W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 3 Ext.P7 and though the fact has been taken note of by the first respondent while passing Ext.P6, it has not been properly appreciated, which hence is sought to be intercepted. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the materials on record, that there is no violation of any principles of natural justice and that the petitioner was all along being represented through a competent lawyer. It is also pointed out that, there was no denial of opportunity with regard to adducing of evidence or perusal of any document and no such application has ever been preferred by the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Appellate Authority has not glibly swallowed the version of the petitioner and though interference was made with regard to the quantum of addition made by the assessing authority, the turnover has been fixed sustaining addition to the extent of actual suppression, which otherwise points out the existence of suppression . W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 4 3. It is to be noted that the petitioner, while doing the furniture business, as above, was also admittedly pursuing some business in 'rubber' as well, which was brought to light only in the course of the proceedings pursued against him. This factual position has been taken note of by the concerned authorities while passing Ext.P1,P3 and P6 orders. The finding rendered by the concerned authorities on the questions of fact, at three different stages of the proceedings as above, is not liable to be scrutinized further by this Court. No violation of any provisions of law or any refusal on the part of the concerned authority in giving effect to any binding precedent to support the case of the petitioner is brought to the notice of this Court. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner has not substantiated any case before this Court calling for interference. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed as devoid of any merits. 5. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already satisfied 50% of the outstanding liability as borne W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 5 by Ext.P5 (pursuant to judgment dated 24-11-2005 in W.P(C) No.32578 of 2005, the steps for recovery shall stand confined only to the balance amount and the collection charges if any. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted one month's time to clear the said liability and the coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance for such time. If the amount is not satisfied as above, it will be open to the concerned respondents to proceed with further steps, for realising the due amount. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON. JUDGE smm W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 6 W.P.(C) NO.13400 OF 2006 7 "