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. 678 of 2003() --------------------- R2.23505/2001/CT of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: ASSESSEE: -------------------- V.SUDARSANAN, HOTEL LAKSHMI BAR, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: REVENUE: --------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 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.678 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed against an order under Section 37 issued by the Commissioner suo moto revising the first revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner reducing the penalty levied from Rs.1,96,910/- to Rs.25,000/-. We have heard Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the Government Pleader and have also perused the orders. 2. The petitioner, a bar hotel, committed major irregularity by not accounting the purchases made from the sole supplier of liquor, Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd., which is a Government of Kerala undertaking. We find that penalty levied is based on the actual turnover tax payable on the suppressed value of goods. The explanation offered by the petitioner was only omission by himself and the Chartered Accountant. Even though the explanation found acceptance with the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner reversed the order of the first revisional authority on the ground that order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We are in complete agreement with the Commissioner's order because 2 purchase turnover suppressed by the petitioner is as high as Rs.28,12,907.60. No one can commit an omission in respect of one third of his turnover. Obviously it was a deliberate case of suppression as found by the Intelligence Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner's order was rightly interfered by the Commissioner or otherwise interest of Revenue would not have been protected. Even though counsel prayed for reduction of penalty, we do not find any mitigating fact because interest is not charged for the turnover tax which should have been paid along with monthly return. In the circumstances, appeal fails and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms