IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 198 of 2010() ------------------------- TA.85/2009 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- N.GOPINATHAN, M/S.MILAGE RUBBER INDUSTRIES, B-41, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UMAYANALLORE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 198 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. On going through the impugned order, We find that penalty originally levied on noticing irregularities in the inspection was as much as Rs. 1,46,085/-. However, the first appellate authority remanded the case to the assessing officer who after hearing the petitioner and after rejecting the records, re-estimated suppression and tax evasion. The penalty was accordingly reduced to Rs. 84,426/- in remand proceedings. In the second round appeal, the appellate authority granted marginal reduction and refixed the penalty at Rs. 75,000/-. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), against which this revision is filed. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that stock variation found was incorrect because physical stock noticed on inspection itself is incorrect. However, the finding of the Tribunal is that this STRev. 198/2010 2 contention was not raised by the petitioner at the time of inspection nor in appeal filed later before the first appellate authority. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same arguments before us. However, we do not think there is any scope for reconsidering petitioner's allegation that physical stock found during inspection was incorrect because this is a factual issue which could be settled at the time of preparation of stock inspection report, which was done in the presence of assessee's representative. We do not find any merit in the revision case. Consequently, ST. Rev. is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk STRev. 198/2010 3