IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 ST.Rev..No. 40 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST ORDER IN TA.103/2010 of DY.CMRR.KERALA AGRL.IT & STAT,EKM. .................... PETITIONER / APPELLANT ------------------------------ M/S MARINE CHEMICALS,DEEPA BUILDINGS, SANTO GOPALAN ROAD,CHULLICKAL,KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T. Rev. No. 40 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. The order under challenge is the penalty order confirmed by the Tribunal in second appeal. Transaction that led to penalty is transport of goods from outside the State to Kerala through parcel service without accounting goods at the border checkpost. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that goods at the time of verification in the parcel office was accompanied by proper bill and the fact that it was not declared at the border checkpost is only an omission on the part of the truck driver. However, Government Pleader submitted that after crossing the border checkpost the goods passed through internal checkposts and nowhere the goods were declared. His further contention is that drivers of parcel service are familiar with the sales tax procedure and the theory of omission in their part is unacceptable. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal and lower S.T.Rv.40/2011 2 authorities that since goods were not accounted at the checkpost by production of documents, there is likelihood of evasion of tax. Consequently penalty is rightly levied and confirmed by the Tribunal. We therefore dismiss the Revision Petition. However, since counsel for the petitioner submitted that huge addition is made in the turnover on account of levy of penalty, it is of course a matter to be contested by the petitioner in the challenge against assessment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk