IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 256 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN TA.236/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN T.A. ------------------------------------------------ K.UMMER, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, KALATHINGAL HOUSE, VERUMPULAKKAL, KADANNAMANNA P.O., MANKADA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. MR.SHAMSUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.256 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. After going through the orders and after hearing the counsel, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the revision because the petitioner was found to be involved in suppression in purchase and sales. The assessment was made on estimation basis by adding 3 times of the value suppressed to the declared turn over. In appeal, substantial relief is granted by reducing the addition to equal amount of suppression detected. The Tribunal confirmed this order against which this revision is filed. 3. Even though learned counsel canvassed for acceptance of the accounts, we do not find any justification for the same because suppression is proved with evidence. Consequently the revision case lacks any merit and is dismissed. STRV No.256/2010 -2- During hearing of the revision, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the revised order issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 13/10/2010 demanding tax, penalty and interest based on the orders of the Tribunal, which is confirmed by us vide this judgment as above. Even though theres is no scope for us to consider the correctness of the demands raised pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, we notice that the Asst. Commissioner has charged interest at 65% of the total demand, which is obviously under Section 23(3A) of the Kerala Government Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). It is not known whether interest is charged on penalty levied under Section 17(5A) of the Act which is the levy made as a result of the revised order issued under Section 19(1) of the KGST Act in modification of the original order issued under Section 17(4) of the Act. Therefore, it is for the Assessing Officer to examine whether interest is payable on penalty levied under Section 17(5A), based on the first appellate authorities' order, and if so for what period. Certainly interest on penalty under Section 17(5A) cannot be demanded from the date of original demand under Section 23(3A) but can be demanded for default in STRV No.256/2010 -3- payment of penalty which is under Section 23(3) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of the revised order in regard to the levy of interest based on rectification application to be filed by the petitioner along with copy of this judgment. The petitioner is also free to settle liability including interest on penalty under the Amnesty Scheme. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg