IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 136 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.335/2008 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ M/S.FAVAZ TIMBER INDUSTRIES, EAST MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.S.ASSIS. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.136 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Revision is filed against levy of penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act for evasion of sales tax, confirmed by first appellate authority and reconfirmed by the Tribunal. We notice that even though Tribunal sustained penalty in principle, they reduced penalty to equal amount of tax evaded by the petitioner. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that transactions are not purchase or sales but were loan and repayments, we notice that the entire transactions are with traders engaged in same business i.e. timber, furniture, furnishing etc. Petitioner is admittedly engaged in timber trade, manufacture and supply of furniture etc. It is seen that the petitioner has partly accounted the purchase and sales, but only balance is accounted in cash transactions. Department has established beyond doubt the unaccounted sales and purchase practised by the petitioner. 2 Consequently we are of the view that penalty was rightly levied. So far as quantum of penalty is concerned,since the Tribunal reduced it to equal amount of tax evaded, there is no scope for interference. Consequently revision is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms