IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 21 of 2004() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2003 IN CT IN R2.13591/2000/CT of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: ASSESSEE ------------------- M/S.PREMIER RUBBER FACTORY, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY K.V.GEORGE, MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: REVENUE -------------------- COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... M.F.A. No.21 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed under Section 40 of the KGST Act against a suo moto revisional order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 37 of the KGST Act. The petitioner's business premises was searched by the Intelligence Wing of the Sales Tax Department and SIR was prepared. Since stock variation and other discrepancies were noticed, penalty was levied. The petitioner did not make any statement to the Inspecting Officer that petitioner has manufactured goods through sister concern on contract basis. No records were also maintained to prove this claim. However, in first revision, the revisional authority accepted the petitioner's argument without any documents or records. This is interfered with by the Commissioner in suo moto revision proceedings under Section 37. We find that the Commissioner has given reasons in support of his order. He rightly pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner had no evidence or material to accept the appellant's contention. The appellant has not given any reason as to why such a claim was not made at the time of 2 inspection. Moreover, records were not produced even before the Deputy Commissioner to prove manufacture through sister concern on contract basis. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The MFA is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms