JOHN Vs. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 order whereunder penalty levied under S.45A of the KGST Act was upheld by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Board of Revenue (Taxes), Thiruvananthapuram), the third respondent herein. In fact the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under S.45A of the Act was Rs. 1,99,356/- which was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is this reduced penalty that is confirmed by the third respondent in second revision is challenged in this O.P.

(2.) The petitioner was a dealer in Cement and the petitioner suppressed purchase of cement for the value of Rs. 8,30,650/- in his accounts that was confirmed by the Assessing Officer after cross checking of the accounts with the supplier which is a reputed cement company by name M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. There is no serious dispute on the facts and there is no scope for contest on the findings of fact of three authorities below that the petitioner has suppressed purchase value. The pattern of suppression done by the petitioner was to show the actual value in the C Forms but lower value in his accounts. In view of the concurrent findings of fact by the three authorities, there is no necessity for this court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the factual findings.

(3.) Petitioner has raised a contention that since the escaped turnover attract tax under S.19(1) of the Act, the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to issue separate order of penalty under Ext. P1. According to the petitioner Ext. P1 was issued under S.45A of the Act. Since it was issued with reference to S.19(2) of the Act also, the same is beyond the period of limitation is his contention. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that separate order under S.19(2) of the Act is not permissible and the said order is without jurisdiction and in any case the order under S.19(2) of the Act is barred by limitation. In support of the contention that an order under S.19(2) of the Act cannot be issued separately, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Jayan Medical Store, 1980 (45) STC 156 . In any case according to the counsel the impugned order is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be set aside.