IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 18501 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P.ISMAIL, PROPRIETOR, ANWAR TRADERS, NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MOHAMEDKUTTY (SR) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DT.28.1.95 PASSED BY R1 FOR THE YEAR 1991- 92. P2: .DO. DT.23.1.95 .DO. 1992-93. P3: TRUE COPY OF FIRST REVISION ORDER DT.27.1.2000 FOR THE YEAR 1991-92. P4: .DO. 1992-93. P5: TRUE COPY OF SECOND REVISION ORDER DT.13.3.2006 PASSED BY R2 FOR THE YEAR 1991-92. P6: .DO. 1992-93. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.18501 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P. is filed challenging penalty orders confirmed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Even though counsel submitted that penalty is not leviable as evasion is not proved, it is clear from the records that suppression of sales represents interstate purchase of goods against F forms issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the evasion is self-evident and petitioner is liable to pay penalty for evasion of tax. However, taking into account the fact that business has become defunct, the Deputy Commissioner was very considerate and he has reduced penalty to almost 50% for one year and 70% for the other year. Even though counsel for the petitioner stated that the dealer's business associate who is none other than his brother, died and the business is closed for several years and all these are certainly grounds for granting further reduction, I am unable to grant any relief because petitioner does not give any commitment for payment of reduced penalty or even the 2 tax pertaining to the same transaction which also remains unpaid. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to approach the respondents for settlement under the present amnesty scheme which is very liberal. If petitioner has any grievance in the course of settlement under amnesty scheme, petitioner is free to approach this court. The W.P. is dismissed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms