HOTEL LUCIYA DRIVE INN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three revisions raise a common question of law, which we re-frame as under:

(2.) The question as to whether there can be a blind adoption of the penalty proceedings has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Velimparambil Hardwares v. State of Kerala [1993 (2) KLT 394]. It was held that penalty proceedings cannot be conclusive when assessment is taken, and the materials relied on by the Intelligence Wing would have to be considered independently by the Assessing Officer.

(3.) With the above principle in mind, we would look at the facts of the present case. S.T.Rev.Nos.13 and 16 of 2020 are with respect to the very same dealer, who is the revision petitioner. The assessment years respectively are 2012-13 and 2013-14; in the first of which assessment years, the gross profit was adopted at the rate of 60% as against the conceded 46.5%. In the later year, gross profit was taken at 70% as against the conceded 53.66%. In the earlier year there was also a stock difference of Rs.3,006/- detected at the time of inspection. S.T.Rev.No.14 of 2020 is with respect to another dealer, who is the revision petitioner. The gross profit adopted was at the rate of 88% as against the conceded gross profit of 78.29%. A variation of stock, to the tune of Rs.24,774/-, was also detected at the time of inspection. Additions were made estimating the gross profit and equal amount of the suppression found.