IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15657 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. BINOD CASHEW CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.VINOD KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C)No.15657 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 15 th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P1 order in respect of the assessment year 2001-02 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the second respondent, which culminated in Ext. P3 order, whereby the assessment was modified, which led to Ext. P4 order. The penalty imposed on the petitioner vide Ext. P2 was challenged by the petitioner by filing first Revision before the second respondent which culminated in Ext.P5, whereby the extent of penalty imposed under Section 45A of KGST Act was reduced from Rs.Thirty lakhs to Rs. Twenty Five lakhs (in figures, but in words, it was written as 'Five lakhs' ). The petitioner filed second Revision before the Commissioner, which led to Ext.P6 order, where interference was declined and the revision petition was dismissed, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. W.P.(C)No.15657 OF 2009 2 2. The main case of the petitioner is that the assessment itself has been modified, as borne by Ext.P4 and that the version put forth by the petitioner has been accepted by the Commissioner, as evident from Ext.P7. This being the position, Ext.P6 order passed by the Commissioner does not reconcile with the facts and figures in the light of Exts.P4 and P7, which hence is sought to be reconsidered. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The only question to be considered is whether the impugned order has been passed by the authority applying its mind properly, to the given set off facts and circumstances. The admitted or rather undisputed facts reveal that the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2001-02 was modified, as borne by Ext.P4, which in turn has been taken note of while passing Ext. P7 order by the Commissioner. This being the position, it is necessary to have a second look in respect of the imposition of penalty. That apart, it is relevant to note that eventhough the second respondent was satisfied that the penalty originally imposed was not correct or sustainable, which made the said W.P.(C)No.15657 OF 2009 3 authority to reduce the penalty, there is no discussion in Ext.P3 as to the extent of interference necessitated. Further, when the said authority decided to reduce the quantum of penalty, it was stated that the penalty was reduced to 'Rs.25,000,00/-', as given in figures, whereas it was separately shown as only 'Rs. Five lakhs' in words. What was actually intended by the second respondent has not been considered by the Commissioner while passing Ext. P6 order, dismissing the Revision Petition. True, this aspect was not raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner, but error apparent on the face of the records cannot be rebutted by adducing any volume of evidence to the contrary. 4. This Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter reconsidered by the first respondent and accordingly, Ext. P6 order is hereby set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the revision preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law and also with reference to Ext.P4 and P7, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two months from the date of W.P.(C)No.15657 OF 2009 4 receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that all coercive steps in furtherance to Ext.P6 order shall be kept in abeyance, till such orders are passed afresh. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk