IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2934 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1782/2004 Dated 27/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 -------------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(EXPORT & IMPORT), O/O THE DY. COMMISSIONER(INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KERALA AT TRIVANDRUM. 4. SALES TAX OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MRS. ALIYAMMA VARGHESE, PROPRIETRIX, ASWATHY INTERNATIONAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J -------------------------------- W.A.2934/2007 ----------------------------- Dated this 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy (Ag.C.J.) The question raised in the appeal is whether Section 45A of the Kerala General sales Tax Act, 1963, can be invoked. The facts of the case are stated by the learned single Judge in paragraph 2 and 3 of the judgment, which read as follows:- “The revisional authority having found that the petitioner had maintained the books of accounts correctly and had declared the taxable turnover properly and the only failure of the dealer was that the tax was not remitted in time, the accusation against the petitioner is not referable to any of the provisions contained in Section 45A of the Act, though penalty for non-payment of tax could have been specifically taken up under Section 45AA of the Act. However, it is also the finding of the revisional authority that the entire tax W.A.2934/2007 2 due was paid, though belatedly, after service of summons for production of books of accounts, but before any proceedings was initiated for imposing penalty. It is also the admitted situation that the entire interest component due on the belated payment of tax was also paid. The impugned penalty proceedings having been initiated only under Section 45A specifically, no grounds referable to the different clauses under the said section stand against the petitioner after the findings in Ext.P4 revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner.” In the above circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is required in the judgment. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, Acting Chief Justice V.GIRI, Judge mrcs