IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8683 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ REJI CHACKO S/O. CHACKO KULAVELIL OIL MILLS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, APEALS, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIRAMPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.8683 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P12 order whereunder the Tribunal has confirmed penalty levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Petitioner's case is that appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal and so much so, order in appeal passed by the Tribunal is unenforceable. Even though the contention is prima facie tenable in as much as statute does not provide for appeal against penalty orders issued under Section 45A of the KGST Act, petitioner volunteered to file appeals and got the orders. It is seen that penalty is levied for suppression in purchase turnover of copra against issue of Form No.25. Penalty orders were subject matter of revision before the Deputy Commissioner. However, revisions were disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) after numbering the revisions as appeals. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) enjoyed delegated powers to hear the revision petitions and so much so, an order issued by him cannot be challenged for want of jurisdiction. However, since revisions were numbered as appeals and since orders were issued by the Deputy 2 Commissioner(Appeals), petitioner probably by mistake filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal without noticing want of jurisdiction for them, considered the appeals on merits and decided the same because petitioner's representative argued the appeals on merits before the Tribunal. In view of the contention that Tribunal had no authority to decide the matter, I have gone through the original order and the revisional order issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Suppression is admitted and the only case of the petitioner is that it was not deliberate. On going through the assessment orders produced in court, I find that no tax is demanded for purchase turnover of copra, the suppression of which led to the penalty. Penalty itself is reduced to equal amount of tax by the Deputy Commissioner. In fact reduction can be granted only if petitioner produces proof of payment of tax and interest thereon. This does not stand proved from the assessment orders. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the penalty orders which are compensatory in nature in as much as penalty is reduced in first revision to the actual tax amount. In the circumstances, W.P. is dismissed. Since the matter is considered and decided by this court on merits, there is no scope for granting facility to the petitioner to file a second revision against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. However, petitioner is granted three equal instalments to 3 clear the arrears of penalty with interest payable under Section 23(3), first of which will be paid before 31st of this month and the balance before 30.4.2008 and 30.5.2008 respectively. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms