IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5682 of 2004(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.GAJANANA AGENCIES, DEALERS IN RUBBER AND HILL PRODUCE, KANHANGAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.H.SATHISH KAMATH. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.M.S.KIRAN SRI.DEEPAK JOY.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, AIT & ST, KASARAGOD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES KASARAGOD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. IS(K) 22/95-96 DATED 16.4.1998 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RP 11/98 DATED 20.3.1999 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF REVISION FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R3-20604/99/CT DATED 13.1.2004 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUSINESS SLIP REFERRED TO IN EXT.P4 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5682 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order whereunder the Commissioner sustained penalty levied under Section 45A by the Intelligence Officer and modified by the Deputy Commissioner. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Penalty is levied based on slip recovered from the business premises in connection with purchase of rubber. Even though first respondent levied penalty of Rs. 75,000/- the Deputy Commissioner reduced it to Rs. 35,000/- which is confirmed by the Commissioner. Petitioner's case is that recovered slip does not relate to the business transactions. I do not think this claim can be accepted because slip was recovered from the business premises and it shows trading transactions in rubber. Moreover, before the three authorities petitioner could not demolish the department's case that slip represents trading transactions. However, it is seen that the tax effect for the goods involved is only Rs. 30,980/- whereas the penalty levied is Rs. 35,000/-. Having regard to the 2 contentions raised, I feel penalty equal to the amount of tax will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly Ext.P4 is modified by reducing the penalty from rupees thirty five thousand to rupees thirty thousand. W.P.C. is disposed of with the above modification. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3