IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2382 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15706/2008 Dated 29/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- A.J.JOSE, PROPRIETOR, STAR TRADING COMPANY, RESIDING AT ANJALI, THOPPIL VEEDU, ARATTUKUZHI, KOOTHALI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2382 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge who has upheld penalty levied by the original authority and confirmed by two revisional authorities. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for respondents and have also gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the impugned orders of penalty. It is seen that appellant accounted purchase and transport of natural rubber from outside the Boarder Check Post in Kerala. However, when the department verified with the Motor Vehicles Department, it was found that the vehicle numbers recorded by the appellant for transport of rubber were only scooters, motorbikes, passenger car etc. The fraud committed by the appellant is intrinsic in this itself and therefore, production of bogus Form No.25 from other dealers by the appellant who obviously acted in collusion with the appellant is of no consequence. We are constrained to observe 2 that the department was bound to take action against those who issued Form No.25 after accounting bogus purchase and therefore, all permissible penal action should have been taken against them such as cancellation of registration, imposition of penalty or even prosecution. Since we find no merit in th appeal, the same is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms