IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17753 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. TIPSY HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, ETTUMANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V.J. JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI. DR. K.B.MOHAMEDKUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ETTUMANNUR. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 11.2.2005 FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST REVISION ORDER (COMMON) DATED 19.9.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND REVISION ORDER DATED 10.3.2006 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 10.6.2004 AND 12.5.2004 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 27.9.2005 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED NIL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 17753 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard senior counsel Sri. Mohammedkutty appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The order under challenge is Ext.P3 whereunder penalty modified by the Deputy Commissioner in first revision is confirmed by the Commissioner in second revision. It is seen from the orders that besides Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, etc., department also seized price list of liquor sold by the petitioner in retail in bar and several sale bills which confirm recovery of higher margins than the gross profit accounted. In fact the finding is that as against 97% GP obtained by the petitioner, department has adopted only 65% GP on retail sale of liquor in bar hotel. In view of the clear finding on fact based on evidence, I do not think there is any scope for interference with the penalty order confirmed by the Commissioner. Since quantum relief is granted in first revision, there is no scope for further reduction. W.P. is accordingly dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2