IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 25 of 2009() ------------------------ TA.53/2008 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- M/S. FAIR TRADERS, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRERTARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T.Rev. No.25 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Challenge is against penalty levied and modified in appeal for attempted evasion of tax. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the time penalty was considered, tax was paid with interest. We find that but for verification of accounts of the supplier, the irregularity committed by the petitioner would not have even been noticed. Further, the confusion over the Finance Bill, 2004 was sorted out when Finance Bill, 2005 came which provided for payment of differential tax by purchasers of items including cement. Inspite of Section 17B introduced by Finance Bill, 2005, petitioner did not choose to remit the differential tax until penalty notice was issued. Besides this, petitioner had issued statutory declaration in Form 25A knowing very well that petitioner is liable to pay tax under Section 5A on their sales. Consequently petitioner is rightly levied penalty for 2 attempted evasion of tax. Since quantum of penalty is reduced to half by the Tribunal, there is no scope for quantum reduction as well. The revision case is consequently dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms