IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 25 of 2007() ------------------------ TA.39/2006 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT: --------------- SRI.CHAINROOP CHHAJER, PROPRIETOR, CRC SALES CORPORATION, JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.25 of 2007 & C.M. Appln. No.56 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Inspite of repeated notice, nobody has turned to appear for the respondent. We have gone through the impugned order and have heard the Government Pleader for the State which filed the revision case. The assessment of the respondent for the year 1998-99 was originally completed under Section 17(4) of the KGST Act. However, later it was noticed that in respect of transport of a consignment respondent was made to deposit a security amount of Rs.7,925/- which was later converted into penalty. Besides this, there is another Crime case also involving transport of another consignment leading to levy of penalty of Rs.6,100/-. Based on these two instances, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment completed under Section 17(4). Even though in first appeal the challenge against jurisdiction to reopen assessment was turned down, the first appellate authority granted quantum relief. 2 However, when the party filed second appeal, Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 19(1) is not tenable in the case because original assessment was made under Section 17(4) of the KGST Act. We do not think we should go into the merits of the case because department has not been able to get even the correct address of the party who closed down business probably years back. The tax effect involved is only around Rs.15,000/-. We, therefore, reject the delay condonation petition as well as the revision case. However, the legal question raised by the department is left open to be raised in appropriate case. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms