IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21492 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. KALYANRAM POLYMERS (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.T.R. KALYANARAMAN, `MEENAKSHI KALYAN' PUNKUNNAM, SITARAM MILL ROAD, TRICHUR-680 002. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, IIIRD CIRCLE, TRICHUR-2. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRDEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21492 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is an SSI Unit, engaged in the manufacture of rigid PVC pipe fittings, is stated as eligible for the benefit of exemption from the Kerala General Sales Tax / Central Sales Tax for purchase tax from 1996-2003, was however, mulcted with liability imposing a penalty under Section 45 A of the KGST Act, as per Ext.P1 order, which, in turn, was subjected to challenge by filing necessary proceedings before the second respondent, who passed Ext.P2 order scaling down the liability to some extent. Being still aggrieved, petitioner preferred a further revision before the third respondent, who observed that the petitioner, though is eligible for exemption, being an 'SSI' Unit, is not eligible for concessional rate as provided under Section 5(3) of the KGST Act and that the petitioner has virtually misused 'Form 18' and it was for this reason, that the penalty was imposed. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was an SSI Unit and differential tax had already been paid, the levy of penalty at double the amount of tax was found excessive and was reduced to a lesser amount of Rs. 1 lakh, which, in turn, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader seeks to sustain the impugned orders, asserting that the imposition of penalty is very much sustainable on WP(C) 21492/2006 2 misuse of 'C Forms', however, adding that maximum indulgence has already been shown, scaling down the liability by the first revisional authority and also by the second revisional authority and that no interference is warranted. 3. There is no representation for the petitioner. As such, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case for the time being. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for default. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-