IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 ST.Appl..No. 7 of 2008() ------------------------ R3.13006/2004 of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------------ M. MOIDU, S/O.MOHAMMED, VADANAMKURRISSI, SHORNUR-679 124. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.S.AMINA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS SALES TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Appeal NO:7 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th February, 2009. JUDGMENT RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. The appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 37 of the KGST Act setting aside the first revisional authorities order cancelling penalty. The case of the appellant is that the goods under transport were covered by proper documents. However, the finding of the original authority is that the documents produced are bogus, more so because the consignee initially denied the transaction. In any case we find that the commissioner after cancelling the first revisional authorities order remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for giving one more opportunity to the appellant to produce the goods vehcile records and prove the genuineness of the transaction as one supported by proper documents. We do not know how the appellant can claim grievance on this order. When documents were found to be bogus by the original authority the Deputy Commissioner cannot interfere with the penalty order without finding proof that the documents are genuine which certainly S.T.Appeal No: 7/2008 2 require confirmation of purchase by the dealer in Kerala. In the circumstances we feel the Commissioner rightly interfered with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Since one more opportunity is granted to the appellant to establish his case there is no scope for interference with the remand order under appeal. Consequently appeal is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: