IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 O.T.Rev.No.70 of 2011 ------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.05.2011 IN T.A.(VAT). NOS.399/2010, 400/2010, 401/2010 & 402/2010) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P.M.SATHAR, PROPRIETOR, NRS TIMBER TRADERS, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. RESPONDENT/ REVENUE/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN. THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, ALONG WITH O.T.REV.NO.71 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- O.T.REV.70 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.9 DATED 7.5.2007, PURCHASE BILL NO.9 DATED 7.5.2007 AND DELIVERY NOTE NO.406574 DATED 7.5.2007 AND MEASUREMENT LIST AND FOREST PASS ISSUED TO M/S.KARNATAKA TIMBER INDUSTRIES, MANGALORE. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.ISK II/OR NO.84/07-08 DATED 25.4.2009 OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.KVATA. 825/09 DATED 10.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE DC(APPEALS), KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED ON 26.7.2010 BEFORE THE KVAT TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-E TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.31PURCHASE BILL NO.31 DATED 25.7.2007 AND DELIVERY NOTE NO.450601 DATED 25.7.2007 AND FOREST PASS AND MEASUREMENT LIST ISSUED TO M/S.KARNATAKA TIMBER INDUSTRIES, MANGALORE. ANNEXURE-F TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.ISKII/OR NO.899/07-08 DATED 7.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE-G TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.KVATA 812/09 DATED 10.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE DC (APPEALS) KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE-H TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED ON 26.7.2010 BEFORE THE KVAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE RATES OF TIMBER NOTIFIED BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT FOR 2007-08 & 2008-09. ANNEXURE-J TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN (VAT) NO.399/2010 TO 402/2010 DATED 20-5-2010 OF THE VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. (true copy) C.N.Ramachandran Nair & K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- O.T.Rev.Nos.70 of 2011 & 71 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this, the 20th ay of December, 2011 ORDER K.Vinod Chandran,J.: The revision petitioner challenges the penalty imposed on detection of offence during transport of goods in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the above revisions. On going through the records, we find that there are two separate penalty orders in each of the years with separate orders in first appeal. The assessee has also filed four appeals before the Tribunal, but has chosen to club the penalty orders in an year and filed a single revision for each year against the common order. It is not conceivable as to which order of the Tribunal is challenged in each of the revisions. Be that as it may, in the nature of the orders to be passed in the revisions, we just record our apprehension and leave it as such. 2. The assessee in each of the years were proceeded against for the offence detected on transport of goods and penalty was imposed at twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The first appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Intelligence Officer, but O.T.Rev.Nos.70 & 71 of 2011 - 2 - in the appeals of 2008-09, quantum relief was granted by giving some modifications. The assessee was before the Tribunal challenging the orders of penalty as confirmed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal after going through the entire facts, found that penalty imposed is proper and that there is no interference called for in so much as the offences stand proved against the assessee. However, with respect to the quantum of penalty, the Tribunal considered the matter and held that the maximum penalty imposed was excessive and reduced the penalty to the actual amount of tax sought to be evaded. 3. The assessee produced a number of documents before us and raised questions regarding the sustainability of imposition of penalty based on the documentary evidences allegedly to prove the sale price of the goods transported by the assessee. We are of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to the questions of law that arise from the order of the Tribunal. We find that three fact finding authorities have concurrently found against the assessee, on facts, and has held the offence alleged against the assessee to be proved in an enquiry conducted with due notice to the assessee and the fair participation of the O.T.Rev.Nos.70 & 71 of 2011 - 3 - assessee. We have also gone through the order of the Tribunal and found that the same does not give rise to any question of law, since the factual circumstances leading to the penalty alone were considered and confirmed by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we do not find any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the above revisions with no order as to costs. Sd/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge. vku/- - true copy -