IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 38908 of 2003(F) PETITIONER: V.MUHAMMED NAHAZ, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KERALA STEELS, KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI. PRINCE T GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERICAL TAXES, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI V K SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON 16/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 38908 of 2003 - F --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June , 2009 J U D G M E N T The proceedings pursued by the departmental authorities particularly imposing the penalty under Section 45(A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the confirmation of the same pursuant to the orders passed by the 'first' as well as the 'second' Revisional authorities, from the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a manufacturer and seller of steel furniture. There was an inspection at the premises on 20/06/2000, conducted by the first respondent wherein some discrepancies were stated as earthed out. Pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioner produced the books of accounts and after checking the facts and figures, the 3rd respondent imposed a penalty of Rs. 61200/- on the petitioner as per Ext.P1. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the second respondent, where interference was declined and the impugned order was confirmed as per Ext.P2. The said order was W.P.(C) 38908/03 2 challenged by filing a second revision petition before the first respondent as borne by Ext.P3. After considering the merits, Ext.P4 order was passed by the Ist respondent, dismissing the Ext.P3 revision, which in turn has been sought to be challenged in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the inspection conducted at the premises and the incriminating circumstances allegedly brought to light are not correct or sustainable either on facts or in law. It is pointed out from the part of the respondents that several notices were issued by the concerned authorities before fixation of the liability upon the petitioner, but the petitioner did not choose to file any reply/statement of objections and did not avail the opportunity of hearing . The sequence of events in this regard has been discussed by the 3rd respondent while passing Ext.P1 order which in turn has been considered and dealt with by the first Revisional authority who passed Ext.P2 order. The above facts and figures have been subjected to further analysis by the second Revisional authority as well, while passing Ext.P4 declining interference. Absolutely no infringement as to any of the rights of the W.P.(C) 38908/03 3 petitioner has been brought to light. Same is the position with regard to the merits of the case, as well. This being the position, the imposition of penalty effected by the third respondent as confirmed by the second and first respondents vide Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 orders does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. sbna/