IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 35803 of 2005(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.K.K.ISSAC & SONS, RUBBER DEALER, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER- K.I.KURIAKOSE. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,MATTANCHERRY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SLIP SEIZED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.5.1988 EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE S TOCK REGISTER FROM MAY 1988 TO 1ST JUNE 1988 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. IEC/III/1988-89 DATED 2.5.1991 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. STRP 330/1993 DATED 15.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SECOND REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 27.1.2001 EXT.P6 A TO M SERIES PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.1988 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R1-7056/01/CT DATED 13.6.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35803 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the volume of business and the physical stock available, the variation in stock noticed was insignificant and consequently the allegation of evasion of tax is not tenable, I do not think this argument is tenable because variation of stock noticed at the time of inspection was Rs. 3,26,576.73. The penalty levied is only with reference to the tax payable on this amount. Moreover the Intelligence Officer himself accepted petitioner's explanation that the truck owned by the petitioner was used for transport of goods belonging to others and addition on that account was not maintainable. In the circumstances, I find the order of the Commissioner is quite reasonable leaving no ground for interference. W.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2