IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 37413 of 2002(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.R.JOHN, PROPRIETOR, FAIR DEAL ENTERPRISES, P.B.NO.709, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-III, OFFICE OFTHE SALES TAX OFFICER, I CIRCLE, THRISSUR. BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.63213/2002 IN OP NO.37413/2002 DISMISSED: 8.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 DT.22.6.98 TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. P2: .DO. DT.23.6.98 FOR 1996-97. P3: .DO. FOR 1997-98. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SALES TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, THRISSUR ON 14.8.98. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS FOR 1995-96DT.10.7.98 ISSUED BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. P6: .DO. FOR 1996-97 .DO. P7: .DO. FOR 1997-98 .DO. P8: PHOTOCOPY OF REVISION PETITION PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 ON 5.2.99 AGAINST EXT.P5. P9: .DO. EXT.P6. P10: .DO. EXT.P7. P11: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.14.12.99 OF R3 IN STRP NOS.81/1999, 82/99 & 83/1999. P12: PHOTOCOPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2 WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 ON 21.3.2000. P13: .DO. 1996-97. P14: .DO. 1997-98. P15: PHOTOCOPY OF ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, BEFORE R2, REFERRED TO IN THE O.P. P16: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.STRP.42,43 & 44/00 (R1.16386/A/00/CT.16386/B/00/CT&R1.16386/C/00/CT) DT.14.11.2002 OF R2 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.37413 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. The order under challenge is Ext.P16 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirming penalty reduced in first revision by the Deputy Commissioner. It is seen that penalty is levied for assessment years 1995- 96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 on account of petitioner's failure to file returns and remit the collected tax in time. Ext.P16 narrates the details of failures including dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner. The only defence taken by the petitioner is financial difficulty which is not tenable in this case because petitioner did not pay even tax collected from customers. It is seen that only after penalty was levied, the petitioner remitted even the collected tax. In fact the Deputy Commissioner showed considerable leniency by reducing the penalty to 50%. I am of the view that the Commissioner rightly rejected the revision petition because the petitioner does not deserve more leniency for his lapses which are serious in nature as petitioner had no justification to retain tax collected from customers. The O.P. fails and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms