IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 14772 of 2001(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. I.K.C. METAL UNIT, ATHIRAKAM, KAKKAD, KANNUR 5, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. I.K.C. ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE, SALES TAX OFFICE, KANNUR. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEKCHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 23292/01 & CMP 54347 OF 2001 IN CMP 23292/01, BOTH IN OP 14772 OF 2001 DISMISSED 23.5.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2001 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2001 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.4.2001 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 14772 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Exts. P6 and P7 orders whereunder revised demand is raised for the tax payable under the Compounding Scheme under Section 7(b) of the KGST Act for stone crushing machines. Even though petitioner declared the size of one machine as 14x7" the Intelligence Officer attached to the Investigating wing of the Department verified the machine and found that the petitioner mis- declared the size of the machine and the machine had higher size which attracts tax under compounding scheme at Rs. 25,000/- per year as against Rs. 12,500/- demanded under the original order. It is this mistake that is corrected under the impugned orders. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that the size of the machine is only as shown in the original assessment order, I do not think this Court can sort out the problem, which requires physical verification. O.P. is accordingly disposed of leaving freedom to the petitioner to file appeal or revision before the appellate or revisional authority and it is for the 2 appellate or revisional authority to verify the facts and decide the matter. I make it clear that if the petitioner still persists the fact by raising the matter before the appellate or revisional authority, and if it is found to be otherwise, penalty should be levied on the petitioner for trying to establish bogus case. Since O.P. is pending for seven years, petitioner is granted three weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to file appeal or revision before the appellate or revisional authority. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3