IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 16 of 2010() ------------------------ (ORDER IN T.A. NO. 3/2008 OF THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SRI.O.KOCHUMMEN BEEN ASHEW COMPANY, KADAMPANADU,KOLLAM 691 553. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GP., SRI MUHAMMED RAFFIQUE THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev.No. 16 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner is a dealer in cashew. On 26.3.2004, the business place of the petitioner was inspected by the Intelligence Officer, Pathanamthitta. He noted certain variations and irregularities. The petitioner compounded the same and paid compounding fee of Rs. 2 Lakhs. On the strength of the same the books of accounts of the petitioner was rejected and completed the assessment on best judgment basis . The Assessing Officer made an addition of three time of the suppressed turn over. In First Appeal the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the assessment. In Second Appeal the Tribunal upheld the decision to make an addition, but found that S.T.Rev.No. 16 of 2010 2 addition at three times is excessive and reduced it to two and a half times. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. Two questions of law are purported to be raised. They are: 1. Whether in the light of the newly introduced Section 17D no addition ought to have been made as the assesses had compounded the offence? 2. In the alternative whether on the facts and circumstances of the case is not the addition made excessive? 3. As far as the first question of law is concerned, in the light of the newly introduced Section, Section 17D, no addition ought to have been made as the assesses has compounded the offence, the assessment made in this case is not under Section 17D. The assessment was made at a time when Section 17D was not there in the Statute Book. Therefore, we do not see any reason how the petitioner can invoke S.T.Rev.No. 16 of 2010 3 the provisions of Section 17D. Therefore, there is no merit in the said question. We answer the same against the petitioner. 4. The second question of law raised is, whether in the facts and circumstances, the addition made is excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inspection was made within a few days of the close of the accounting year. Therefore the addition should have been in proportion to the remaining period of that year. He would submit that the petitioner had declared a turn over of Rs. 32 Crores. Having regard to the irregularities and the time at which it was noticed, the Tribunal should have granted greater relief than what was granted. 5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, pointed out the irregularities. Admittedly the petitioner has compounded the offence and there cannot be any question of justifiability of the decision to reject the accounts or going for addition. At the time of inspection, it was noticed that the day book was not available at the business place. It is found that on verification of the stock in the S.T.Rev.No. 16 of 2010 4 Head Officer it was found that out of the 14241 kgs. of kernel received from different branches upto the time of inspection, 9917 kgs. of kernel was not accounted in the Head Office account. Two other irregularities were also noticed. The Tribunal has already granted relief to the petitioner by reducing the addition from three time to two and a half times. We do not think, in the circumstances of the case, that it could be said that the petitioner has succeeded in raising a question of law as to the nature of the quantum of addition made. In such circumstances there is no merit in this Revision Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm