Kerala High Court
T.P.Antony vs The Addl. Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 5 June, 2008
Author: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 990 of 2005(P)
1. T.P.ANTONY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDL. SALES TAX OFFICER-II,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/06/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------
WP(C) No. 990 of 2005
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order whereunder the Commissioner has re-fixed the penalty levied on petitioner under Section 45A at 1= times of tax on turn over tax evaded for the year 1998-99. Petitioner, who was a dealer in Indian Made Foreign Liquor, filed return without disclosing full turn over. However, Form 50B statement of accounts filed by the petitioner shows the difference between returned figure and the actual figure, on which tax is paid. It is seen that petitioner has filed revised return. However, turn over tax was not paid along with the revised return and it was in fact paid in instalments. Learned counsel contended that part of the amount was paid in time and balance only was remitted in instalments. He also pointed out that interest is also paid for the belated payment as is seen from the assessment order. Petitioner's case is that there is no evasion on turnover tax and consequently penalty is not payable. However, I do not think petitioner's claim can be accepted. But for the verification of WP(C) No.990/2005 -2- accounts by the Officer and detection of evasion, petitioner would not have probably filed revised return and paid the turnover tax. Petitioner also has not explained why turnover tax was not paid along with the revised return on substantial amount. Only when scrutiny was completed by the Officer, petitioner produced the accounts. The records show that only on issuing notice proposing finalisation of assessment by the officer, petitioner produced the accounts and offered to pay the tax that too in instalments. Therefore, levy of penalty confirmed in revision is upheld in principle. However, I feel penalty refixed at 1 = times of turn over tax is on the high side, if petitioner has paid interest without contest in terms of the assessment order. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of refixing the penalty at equal amount of turnover tax as against 1= times fixed by the Commissioner, provided petitioner paid interest from the due date of payment along with monthly returns till date of remittance. This matter requires adjudication by the Officer and if he finds that petitioner paid interest as above on belated payment of turn over tax, he will recover the penalty only at equal amount of tax as against 1= times refixed by the Commissioner. However, if petitioner contests interest, or has not WP(C) No.990/2005 -3- remitted the same, then the penalty refixed by the Commissioner at 1= times of turnover tax will stand confirmed.
WP(C) is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg