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 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 48 of 2007 ------------------------ TA.66/2006 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- V.K.ABDULLA, GROCERY DEALER, PERAMBRA. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev. No. 48 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The revision arises from the order of the Tribunal declining to entertain appeal against penalty levied under Section 17(5A) of the KGST Act. The original assessment completed under Section 17(4) was revised under Section 19(1) of the Act. This Court in the decision reported in M.K. Pushparanjiri, Chikku's Wood Crafts v. The Sales Tax Officer and others [(2003) 11 KTR 527] held that penalty under Section 175 A is mandatory for a case of this nature. In fact, since penalty is mandatory, there is no scope to challenge against the same either in appeal or in revision. However, if revised assessment is challenged and tax revised, then penalty will also stand revised. In view of the finding in the above case that penalty is mandatory, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the case as one not STRV: 48/2007 -:2:- maintainable against proceedings under Section 17(5A), we therefore dismissed the S.T. Revision. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. ttb STRV: 48/2007 -:3:-