KEY FOODS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is questioning exhibit P9 order passed by the intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, Mattanchery, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,40,000.00 on the petitioner for non-payment of entry tax being twice the amount of entry tax payable by him. According to the petitioner, it has purchased a ford motor car from Pondicherry and used the same in Pondicherry and after 15 months it registered the vehicle in Kerala. Since re-registration is after 15 months, no entry tax need be paid by it. It is further pointed out that exhibit P9 order was passed by the Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, who has no jurisdiction to pass orders of penalty. Under S. R. O. No. 1210/94, only Sales Tax Officers who are authorised can exercise the powers of the assessing authority. Petitioner contends that the order is without any jurisdiction. Therefore, without filing a statutory appeal, he has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader submitted that petitioner has no business in Pondicherry and even though the vehicle is registered in Pondicherry it is used in Kerala State . It has been categorically found by the assessing authority that petitioner is an income-tax assessee in Kerala, possessing activities only in Kerala and also, holding telephones, driving licence, insurance certificate bearing Kerala address only and no evidence was adduced to prove that petitioner has got any business in Pondicherry. With regard to the jurisdiction it is submitted that the Intelligence Officers of the Commercial Taxes Department are conferred with Statewide jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Sales Tax Officers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and to act as assessing authorities, as could be seen from G. O. (Ms) No. 130/89/td dated June 30, 1989. The Intelligence Officer of Commercial Taxes who is in the same rank of Sales tax Officer enjoys all powers concurrently. In view of the Government order, I am not accepting the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, has got power in view of S. R. O. No. 1210/94 to pass orders like exhibit P9. With regard to the quantum of merit and quantum of penalty petitioner ought to have filed an appeal as provided under section 13 of the Act. Since petitioner had filed the writ petition and the writ petition was admitted, the petitioner is allowed to file an appeal as provided under section 13 within one month from today. Appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits, if appeal is filed within one month from today as if the appeal is filed in time. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of. . .