IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 OT.Rev.No. 17 of 2011() ----------------------- TA.136/2009 of KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASEESSEE: ----------------------------------------------------------- M.P.IBRAHIMKUTTY, MULLASSERY, BISMILLAH WIRE CUT BRICKS, NEDUVANNUR, CHOWARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, ALONG WITH OTRV NO.18 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (OTRV 17/2011) ANNEXURE I: COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DT.15.5.2008. ANNEXURE II: COPIES OF LOAN AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (COLLECTIVELY). ANNEXURE III: COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT.24.2.09. ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT.13.8.2010. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.T. Rev. Nos.17 & 18 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for respondents. Orders under challenge are penalty levied under Section 67 of the KVAT Act for unaccounted business carried on in brick without payment of tax. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders what we notice is that the department collected specific details with regard to cheques received and cash remittance made in the Bank Account maintained by the petitioner. The department also collected information from the construction companies wherein their ledger accounts show payment to petitioner as brick manufacturer and supplier of bricks to them. In view of the clear findings of fact, we do not find any justification to interfere with the levy of penalty, particularly because penalty itself is limited to the actual tax evaded 2 and the turnover assessed is based on the credit shown in the Bank. Consequently O.T. Revision cases are dismissed. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge True copy P.S. to Judge pms