IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 OT.Rev.No. 30 of 2009() ----------------------- TA(VAT).216/2008 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------- M/S.PALAKANDY STEELS (P) LTD., VI/1870, KALARIPARAMBU, MARUTHA ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. P.HAFEEZULLA, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/REVENUE --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, ALONG WITH OTREV. 31 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.T. Rev. No. 30 & 31 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the revision petitioner and Government Pleader. Connected revisions arise from the orders of the Tribunal partly sustaining penalty for one year in one case and dismissing the case for another year . So far as OT Rev. 30 of 2009 is concerned we find that penalty is levied for transporting goods without being accompanied by mandatory document, namely, Delivery Note in form No.15. Even though penalty stands sustained by order of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal has shown leniency and granted quantum relief by reducing the penalty to equal the amount of tax. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal because transport pursuant to sale of notified goods by one dealer to another should be under cover of Form 15 which the petitioner did not send along with goods. Since the Tribunal has granted quantum relief, there is no scope for further interference. Consequently OT Rev. 30 of 2 2009 is dismissed. 2. So far as O.T.Rev. No. 31 of 2009 is concerned, even though counsel for the petitioner contended that the defect in not numbering the invoice is only technical and is a mistake and duplicate and triplicate copies contained numbers, we are unable to accept the explanation because when goods are transported under cover of invoice the transaction gets accounted only when invoice is numbered. The defect is not a minor one as projected by counsel for the petitioner. It is a serious omission entitling the department to levy penalty for attempt to evade tax. Consequently, we dismiss OT Rev. 31 of 2009. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3