IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 28113 of 2005(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. SUN PROFILES (P) LTD., IV/39A, COCHIN REFINERY ROAD, IRIMPANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,B.H.MAMMY. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MOHAMMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, THRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.28113/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER K.G.S.T. ACT DT. 27.5.1997. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER CST ACT DT. 27.5.97. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DT. 15.6.99. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DT. 14.3.2000. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DT. 15.3.2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28113 OF 2005 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Exts.P3 and P5. He also seeks to alternate relief to reduce the penalty to the minimum. Ext.P1 is the Certificate of Registration granted in favour of petitioner under the KGST Rules. Ext.P2 also is a Certificate granted under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The goods mentioned are C.R. Sheets, H.R. Sheets and M.S. Sheets. By Ext.P3, penalty came to be imposed on the petitioner under Section 10(A)(1) read with Section 10(b) of the CST Act. It is stated therein, inter alia, that the petitioner made purchase of machinery and parts. It is also stated that on enquiries conducted, it was understood that the Company has not yet installed the machinery for production. Thereafter, it was found that there is contravention. However, the order is passed reducing the penalty to one and half times instead of two times as proposed. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Deputy WPC. 28113/05 V 2 Commissioner, whereunder the penalty is further reduced to Rs.75,000/= (Rupees Seventyfive Thousand). A further revision culminated in Ext.P5 order confirming Ext.P4. In Ext.P5, it was found that there was misuse of C Forms, has been established. 2. I heard Dr. K.B. Muhammed Kutty, learned senior counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that there was a bona fide belief that the machinery is covered by items 1, 2 and 3 which were purchased. He also relied on a decision of this Court in Palghat Dist. Co-operative Rubber Marketing Society v. Asst. Commr. (1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 58) and also on the decision of the Madras High Court in C.S.Parthasarathy Chetty v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2006) 148 STC 256 (Mad) (FB)). Learned Government Pleader also relies on a decision of this court in Asianet Satellite Communications (P) Ltd. v. Additional Sales Tax Officer & another ((2008) 16 KTR 133 Ker.). I would think that in the state of the law and in the facts presented in this case including the quantum of penalty and the products which WPC. 28113/05 V 3 were entered in Ext.P2 Certificate and the machineries which are bought, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.