IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Appl..No. 10 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/04/2008 IN O.NO..R1.6855/200608/TX of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: -------------------- KAIRALI FOODS AND SPICES PUTHIYEDAM, KANJOOR PO., ERNAKULAM DT. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SIJU VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS SALES TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T. A. No. 10 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner restoring the penalty of Rs. 1,76,628/- levied on the appellant for the assessment year 2001-02. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader. On going through the orders we find that the turnover returned by the appellant in the original return was Rs.17,41,117/-. However, when the Intelligence Officer verified the accounts massive suppression was detected. Even though appellant filed revised returns declaring turnover of Rs. 36,60,998/- which is more by Rs. 19,19,881/- from the original turnover, the Intelligence Officer levied penalty. Even though in first revision penalty was reduced on the ground that appellant was entitled to exemption of substantial turnover, it is seen that most of the items sold are items on which exemption is not available. Therefore the commissioner restored 2 the penalty in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the KGST Act against which this appeal is filed. We find from the Commissioner's order that appellant is systematically engaged in evasion of tax and when massive evasion was detected, he sustained the penalty. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the commissioner, more so because difference between the turnover originally returned and revised by the appellant is more than equal amount. Suppression is therefore above 100 per cent. We therefore dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3