IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 16 of 2008() ------------------------ TA.127/2007 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------------------- P.K.MOHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, M/S THANGALSONS JEWELLERY, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MOHAMMEDKUTTY (SR.) ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/REVENUE --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33117 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.16 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No.33117 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of September, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Senior counsel Dr.K.B.Mohammedkutty appearing for the petitioner in the connected cases and the Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The revision cases arise from orders of the Tribunal modifying the assessment over and above the modification done in first round of appeal. In the W.P.(C) challenge is against penalty levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act for evasion of tax sustained by the Commissioner. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in gold jewellery in a rather unimportant place in the Kozhikode District. During the year 2004- 2005 he returned a very low sales turnover of Rs.2,31,234.75. However, the department detected one single suppressed sale of ornaments for petitioner by his brother in a Jewellery at Trivandrum, the value of which is as high as Rs.1,83,41,008/-. Since petitioner's 2 authorisation for sale was available with his brother who was found to be involved in clandestine sale of gold ornaments, the department simultaneously searched the business premises of the petitioner, wherein also unaccounted stock of Rs.11,44,081.60 was detected. The petitioner admitted the ownership of goods seized by the department from his brother and got it released by paying compounding fee. In the penalty proceedings, based on the evidence available the Intelligence Officer levied penalty at double the amount of tax and the same got confirmed in two rounds of revision, against which W.P.(C) is filed. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that as against ridiculous turnover of Rs.2,31,234.75 returned by the assessee, suppression noticed was Rs.1,94,85,089.60. He estimated the turnover by adding two times of the suppressed turnover. In first appeal, the first appellate authority reduced the addition to six times of the suppression. On further appeal, the Tribunal granted substantial relief by reducing the addition to equal amount of the suppression besides the value of suppression itself. It is against this order the revision case is filed. 3. So far as assessment confirmed by the Tribunal is concerned, 3 we notice that the Tribunal has granted substantial relief and there is no justification for this court to interfere with the said order. So far as penalty is concerned, we find that by proceedings dated 2.7.2009 the petitioner has settled liability under amnesty scheme. Payments are seen made in instalments and the settlement is made on an all-inclusive amount including tax, interest and penalty. Obviously under the amnesty scheme petitioner got substantial reduction, particularly in penalty and, therefore, no interference is called for in a matter already settled under the amnesty scheme. Consequently S.T. revision case as well as the W.P.(C) are closed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms