IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 19148 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJU ABRAHAM, TIMBER DEALER, NELLICKAL, AYTHALA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.18.9.2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT.9.10.2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DT.28.10.2003 PASSED BY R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.29.4.2004 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.10.12.2004 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY R3. P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF CASE BY R3. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13.3.2006 PASSED BY R3. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.19148 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT W.P. is filed challenging Ext.P7 order whereunder the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has restored Ext.P3 penalty order issued on the petitioner for evasion of tax. In fact, after detection of the irregular claim of concessional rate of tax by the petitioner, petitioner furnished revised returns and appears to have remitted the tax along with interest, based on which the Deputy Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. However, Commissioner found evasion of tax and therefore, original penalty was restored in proceedings initiated under Section 37 of the KGST Act. In the first place, only an appeal to the Division Bench is maintainable against Section 37 order. However, since the W.P. is admitted and pending for the last two years, probably petitioner could be permitted to argue the case on merits. The Government Pleader pointed out that amnesty scheme is very liberal and it would be better if petitioner approaches the respondents for settlement under amnesty scheme. Since amnesty scheme is 2 very liberal, W.P. is closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to approach the respondents for settlement. The petitioner is free to challenge the order in appeal, if liability is not settled. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms