IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30972 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.ABBAS, BHARAT GLASS, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SALES TAX OFFICER (RESERVE), ATTINGAL. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 30972 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P2 and P3. By Ext.P1, petitioner was visited with a penalty of Rs.1,86,460/- for the year 2001-2002 for non- maintenance of correct and complete accounts, filing of untrue and incorrect returns with a view to fraudulantly evade payment of tax due to Government. Petitioner preferred appeal and the first revisional authority by Ext.P2 order agreed with the finding that there was evasion. But taking note of the other circumstances including the fact that no previous instances of this practice was brought to light, penalty at approximately 150% of the tax due was found to be sufficient and the amount was reduced to Rs.1,10,000/-. Petitioner preferred further revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who by Ext.P3 concurred with the order. It is accordingly the petitioner has approached this court. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.R.Anil Kumar and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case were monthly returns were filed correctly and revised returns were also filed and the petitioner should not have been visited with penalty. WPC.30972/2004. 2 4. Learned Government Pleader supports the order. 5. I perused the orders. The case against the petitioner was that he had conceded larger purchases of non-taxable items and on verification of the purchase list on non-taxable items filed along with the profit and loss account, it was found that there was manipulation of accounts and there is vast difference between the actual purchase and conceded in the Annual Purchase List. Petitioner no doubt filed a revised return, but it was noted that the revised return was filed only after notice was issued in the penalty proceedings under Section 45A. 6. In the facts of this case, I do not see any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution with the findings arrived at by the authorities. Petitioner has been granted appropriate relief also, I find, by the Deputy Commissioner vide Ext.P2 order. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb