IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2137 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.4790/2003 Dated 24/05/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M/S.PALATHARA MOSAIC INDUSTRIES, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY P.M.JOSEPH, MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J -------------------------------- W.A.2137/2007 ----------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy (Ag.C.J.) Petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the sale of marble, mosaic etc. He was an assessee to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 45 A of the Act by the Intelligence Officer based on an inspection conducted in the business premises. During the financial year 1997-98 and 1998-99 the firm had received an amount of Rs.9,75,000/- towards consideration thereof. The contention of the petitioner was that consequently penalty proceedings were taken. The contention that a cheque was received by his son Sebastian Joseph and he has got a separate business was not accepted by the authority concerned. Intelligence Officer, on inspection, found that there was a suppression of the turnover. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred a revision before the second respondent contending that the works were executed and payments received by one Mr.Sebastian Joseph. Second respondent disposed of the revision directing that the matter be considered afresh by the W.A.2137/2007 2 authority. The appellate authority invoking power of suo motu revision held that there was suppression of the transactions and therefore, imposed penalty. Learned Judge considered the contentions in detail and found that no interference by this Court was called for. Considering the facts that he has to pay the tax and also considering the fact that it is not necessary that always maximum penalty should be awarded, we are of the opinion that if 100% of tax is awarded as penalty, justice will be done. Therefore, we reduce the penalty by 50%. Subject to the above modification, writ appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, Acting Chief Justice V.GIRI, Judge mrcs