IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 24402 of 2001(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.H.NOORDHEEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.JACKSON RUBBERS, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER I, SALES TAX OFFICE, PALAI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALAI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.40002/2001 IN O.P. NO.24402/2001 DISMISSED: 25.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.8.9.2000 FILED BEFORE R1 BY THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.27.11.2000 ISSUED BY R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF CASE SHEET OF TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, BOMBAY DT.4.5.2000. P4: TRUE COPY OF REVISION APPLICATION IN FORM NO.31A DT.27.1.2001 FILED BEFORE R2. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.R.P. 10/2001 DT.11.4.2001 OF R2. P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.14.6.2001 ISSUED BY R3. P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.14.6.2001 OF R3. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.24402 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order whereunder the first revisional authority confirmed penalty levied on the petitioner under Section 45A of the KGST Act for the year 1998-99. Even though petitioner was entitled to file a second revision against Ext.P5 order, he has given up his right and challenged the first revisional order in this O.P. The case against the petitioner is that petitioner though purchased pepper waste of Rs.10,24,879/- from an outside party in Tamil Nadu, he did not account any purchase or sale of the transaction. Even though petitioner has denied the transaction, I find that petitioner's claim is not correct in as much as department has got confirmation from the suppliers in Tamil Nadu that petitioner had in fact purchased the goods, the details of which were available in the Check Post records also. Supplier is a planter in Nilgiris and goods have passed through Check Post is evident from the Check Post records. The supplier has confirmed the transactions on query by the Sales Tax Department. In order to reach the goods from consignor's place in Nilgiri to petitioner's place of business in the State, goods have to pass 2 several Check Posts and unless goods are accompanied by proper documents issued by Tamil Nadu Sales Tax authorities like Form 20, the goods would not have reached the petitioner. Obviously denial of transaction by the petitioner is without any bonafides and in view of the confirmation given by the supplier which is a registered dealer in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner has no escape from liability consequent upon evasion practised by him. However, having regard to the financial difficulties of the petitioner and his protracted illness submitted by counsel for the petitioner, I reduce the penalty to rupees fifty thousand on condition that reduced penalty with interest thereon will be paid by the petitioner to the respondents before 15.3.2008. If payment is not made, reduction granted will stand automatically cancelled and O.P. will be treated as dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms