IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1737 of 2005(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHRI K.V.ASHRAF, S/O. MEMI, AGED 50 YEARS, GROCERY MERCHANT, RESIDING AT `KINAKKOOL VAYALIPATH HOUSE', PERATTA, KOOTTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.PUSHPY B.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THALASSERY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), THALASSERY. BY SHRI.TEKCHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1737/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ORDER NO.IST/298/94-95 DATED 06/08/2003 ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF REVISION ORDER R.P.NO.70/2003 AND 71/2003 DATED 17/03/2004 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. P3 : COPY OF REVISION ORDER DATED 10/12/2004 PASSED BY R3. P4 : COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 30/10/2004 SUBMITTED BEFORE R3. P5 : COPY OF RR NOTICE NO.78/3/02-03 DATED 14/11/2002 ISSUED BY R3. P6 : COPY OF SIR DATED 10/03/1995. P7 : COPY OF SEIZED ACCOUNT BOOKS FROM THE PLACE OF BUSINESS. P8 : COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 45A DATED 8/7/2003. P9 & 9(a) : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01/06/2000 IN OP NO.10229 AND SYNOPSIS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- WP(C) No.1737 of 2005 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 2. I find no ground to interfere with the penalty order because on enquiry petitioner along with others were found to be engaged in the business in cashew without payment of tax. In fact, petitioner’s employee gave categorical statement that business was done by the petitioner and he was only an employee. Cross examination of the employee by petitioner did not yield any favourable result. Therefore, penalty was levied for evasion of tax. Since all the authorities have concurrently found that petitioner carried on business along with others, there is no scope for interference with the penalty. The writ petition is, therefore, closed leaving freedom to petitioner to approach respondents for settlement of liability under the Amnesty scheme currently in force. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg