IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 311 of 2008() ------------------------- (ORDER IN T.A.(VAT) 52/08 OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) (S): -------------------- M/S.CASTROL INDIA LTD., C/O.M.K.ASSOCIATES KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SPL. G.P. SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.311 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. On going through the order of the Tribunal and that of the lower authority, we notice that the consignment under transport was detected at 5' O clock in the morning with original of the invoice, that too, raised 37 hours before the time of detection. The petitioner's explanation is that the driver was taking rest with the consignment of goods. However, the Intelligence Officer found that the driver and the dealer were almost from the same area and therefore the explanation offered for delay in transport of goods is not genuine. The petitioner also has not explained as to why original of the invoice was used for transport instead of duplicate which is the mandate for transport of goods under Rule 58(11) of the KVAT Rules. Even though counsel contended that petitioner produced duplicate copy for transport of goods later made, it is the settled position that 2 accounting of goods subsequent to detection of offence will not entitle the dealer to escape penalty. Petitioner's counsel has relied on decision of this court in K.G.THOMMEN V. STATE OF KERALA (1994 KLJ TAX CASES 477). However, we notice that besides violation of provisions of the KVAT Act and Rules in regard to transport of goods, Intelligence Officer found other circumstances like inordinate delay in transport to justify finding on evasion of tax. In view of the concurrent finding by the three authorities that the appellant has attempted evasion of tax, we confirm the penalty and dismiss the revision case. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms