IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 23786 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.KANNAN, COPRA DEALER, KOTTAPURAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, KASARGOD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARGOD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), HOSDURG. BY G.P. SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R1TOR4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY R1 DT.20.9.2000. P2: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DT.5.9.2000. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARGOD, DT.2.5.2003. P4: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.28.6.2003. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R3 DT.18.7.05. P6: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASST. COMMR.(KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARGOD, DT.19.8.2005. P7: TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BEFORE R3 DT.19.5.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.23786 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 whereunder the Commissioner has reduced penalty levied under Section 45AA of the KGST Act from Rs.1,23,844/- to Rs.75,000/-. It is seen that penalty is levied on account of non-payment of collected tax for the year 1995-96. Petitioner retained around Rs.1,25,000/- of the collected tax for nearly four years, on which no interest is payable because of want of provision in the statute for interest until 2000. In the circumstances, I do not think any further leniency is called for in the matter because the Commissioner has granted substantial reduction in penalty. The W.P. is therefore dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms