IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28033 of 2007(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.BELL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS IST FLOOR, VALYAVEETTIL BUILDINGS, NEAR JUMA MASJID,EDAPPALLY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.MOHANAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO-1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28033/2007-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/03/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04/09/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.28033 of 2007-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. Judgment 1.The petitioner challenges concurrent decision of statutory authorities in a penalty proceedings under the KGST Act. Two contentions were raised before the first revisional authority, as also the second revisional authority. The rate of tax was disputed. That now stands concluded, admittedly, in favour of the petitioner, as per the decision of this Court in Mohammed Habeebulla v. State of Kerala, 2007(1) KLT 175. 2.The second contention is that the stock analysis statement showing the opening stock as on 1.4.2000 and purchase and sales as on 7.11.2000 as produced by the petitioner ought to have been acted upon. This contention has been met by the Deputy Commissioner in the first revision by stating that the Intelligence Officer relied on WPC28033/07 -: 2 :- the stock statement as on 7.11.2000 available in the business premises of the petitioner and therefore, that authority does not find any reason to ignore that stock statement and to analyse the stock based on the stock statement stated to have been made at the opening of that financial year. This contention, though taken to the second revisional authority also, did not appeal. The second revisional authority found that no evidence is produced to deviate from the findings of the first revisional authority since stock statement dated 7.11.2000 was recovered from the business place of the petitioner at the time of inspection. The said findings are findings of facts and available in the realm of appreciation of evidence and materials. There is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the revisional authorities having adopted the procedure which they have, as noted above. In the result, the impugned orders will stand revised on the basis that the rate of tax WPC28033/07 -: 3 :- applicable is 8%. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1204