IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 1613 of 2007(P) -------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M/S. KUNHIKANNAN JEWELLERY, GOLD HOUSE, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI C.V.RAVEENDRANATH. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 1613 of 2007(P) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2001 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.R.P.17/2001 DATED 29.7.2003 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.10.2006 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6-6-2001. EXT.P5 : COPY OF NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 1613 of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the proceedings, regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 45 A of the KGST Act with respect to the assessment year 2000-'01. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm, doing jewelery business and is an assessee on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Kannur. It is stated that the petitioner was maintaining proper books of account and was doing business in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. However, there occurred a search and seizure in the premises of the petitioner on 05.08.2000, whereby some incriminating materials/stock were detected. Pursuant to which, notice was issued, referring to the suppressed turn over and proposing to impose penalty under Section 45 A. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed Ext. P1 order imposing the penalty, against which a statutory revision was filed before the second respondent. After considering the merits involved, the revision petition was dismissed, as borne by Ext. P2 order, whereupon the petitioner preferred second revision before the third respondent, who also declined interference, as borne by Ext. P3 W.P. (C) No. 1613 of 2007 : 2 : order dated 25.10.2006 which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the alleged quantity of the commodity stated as suppressed, was only 10,000 gms., while the penalty imposed is the 'maximum' being double amount of tax payable. The facts and figures have been meticulously analyzed by the departmental authorities at three different levels and this being the position, this Court is not justified in proceeding to have any fact adjudication. The only question now arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the authorities concerned have exceeded their jurisdiction or whether their action is wrong or perverse in any manner ? 5. On examining the said position, in the light of the materials on record, this Court finds that the question can be answered in in the negative. The course pursued by the concerned respondents does not call for any interference. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that, this will not stand in way of the petitioner from availing the benefit under the 'Amnesty Scheme', which is stated as extended till 31.12.2010. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd