IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 103 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.127/2004 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------- M/S.TEXPO TRADE LINK, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR DIST., REP. BY ITS PARTNER K.RAJU. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.103 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision is filed against penalty levied under Section 17(5A) of the KGST Act. Penalty under Section 17(5A) cannot be independently challenged because it is an automatic levy at three times the differential tax demanded after original assessment completed under Section 17(4) of the KGST Act is modified. In this case original assessment was completed under Section 17(4) accepting books of accounts. However, later it was noticed that assessee was not entitled to assessment based on books of accounts which were found only incomplete during inspection. Consequently assessment is revised making addition which was modified by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. Since petitioner is not challenging the addition sustained, there is no scope for entertaining challenge against 2 levy of penalty under Section 17(5A) which is automatic. The revision case is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms