IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 8552 of 2004(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.WHEELS, DNM ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, REP. BY SHRI.VINOD M.SREENIVAS, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY EAPEN SRI.LIJO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERAL, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE OCPY OF ORDER DT.30.4.2002 OF ASST. COMMR. (ASSMT)II SPL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.2.2003 OF DY. COMMR., COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.17.9.2003 NO.STRP 103/03 OF COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TVM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.8552 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dismissed revision petition filed by the petitioner against levy of penalty. In first revision, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the penalty to 25% of the amount levied by the officer. The contention of the petitioner is that penalty levied is only for belated payment of advance tax due for March 2002. Counsel contended that in the absence of finding on evasion of tax, the maximum penalty that could be levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act is only Rs.5,000/-. Government Pleader on the other hand contended that Rule 21C is mandatory in nature and if 90% advance tax is not paid before the due date, i.e. on or before 31st March of the year, there is violation and penalty upto double the amount can be levied under Section 45AA of the Act. This court has taken the view that belated payment of advance tax defeats the very purpose of provision for payment of advance tax. In this case explanation of the petitioner is that substantial sales were after 25.3.2002 and therefore, petitioner could not pay the advance tax reckoning 2 the high turnover achieved towards the end of March. However, petitioner has not explained why petitioner could not remit balance advance tax by 30th or 31st of March itself. I do not find any justification to interfere with the penalty because violation is admitted and first revisional authority has reduced the penalty to 25%. Even though Section 45AA is not mentioned; this is a case where violation is both under Section 45A as well as Section 45AA of the Act. Therefore, there is no scope for interference, more so because substantial reduction is granted in first revision. The W.P. is therefore dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms