IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21465 of 2003(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ IY TEE CEE TRADING COMPANY, PULPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.P.RAGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INV. BRANCH), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT.), BOARD OF REVENUE, CALICUT. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COM. TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. 4. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, AMBALAVAYAL. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP FOR R1-R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA NO.8829/2003 IN WP NO.21465/2003 DISMISSED: 1.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER IN STRP 41 TO 43/95. P2: COPY OF NOTES FILED BEFORE R1. P3: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R1. P4: COPY OF ORDER DT.7.2.99. P5: COPY OF ORDER IN STRP 77,78,79/99. P6: COPY OF ORDER IN STRP 50,50A, 50B OF 2001 DT.31/8/2002. P7: NOTICE IN FORM 1 DT.15.5.2003. P8: .DO. .DO. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.21465 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order whereunder the Commissioner has confirmed penalty levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act and confirmed in first revision by the Deputy Commissioner. It is seen from the impugned orders that the suppliers of maida, aatta, sooji etc. in Mysore in Karnataka State furnished details of purchase by the petitioner for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. However, the petitioner did not account these purchases in the books of accounts and therefore, penalty was levied for unaccounted purchase and sale of goods. Against first round of penalty, petitioner got remand orders for cross- examining suppliers. However, suppliers confirmed transactions during cross-examination in revised penalty proceedings. Since transactions stand proved, the revisional authorities confirmed penalty. Even though petitioner has denied the transactions, I find that the department has established a clear case of evasion with evidence furnished by suppliers with whom petitioners had steady dealings for several years. In the circumstances and since penalty is based on concurrent finding of fact by 2 three authorities, that too, based on evidence furnished by suppliers, there is no scope for interference. The O.P. is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms