SREE RAMACHANDRAN ENTERPRISES Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer under the KGST Act. On 09.08.2002, an inspection was conducted at an undeclared godown of the petitioner, an employee's residence and also at a business place of the petitioner. Exts.P1 to P3 are the shop inspection reports that were prepared. On the basis of Exts.P1 to P3, Ext.P4 notice under Section 28 (8) of the KGST Act proposing penalty of 50% of the value of the undeclared stock was proposed. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply. Finally, Ext.P6 order was passed imposing penalty of Rs.7,72,303/ -.

(2.) The petitioner filed a revision to the Deputy Commissioner. By Ext.P7 order, the revision was allowed with the following directions: I therefore, find that the case should go back to the Intelligence Officer for fresh disposal after affording petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to prove their case. If the books of accounts and other records are available with the Intelligence Officer, he should have arranged verification of the records seized by him and arrived at a clear conclusion on the position of the stock held in the undeclared godown, whether it is accounted or unaccounted. In the above circumstances, I set aside the penalty proceedings and remit the case back to the Intelligence Officer for fresh disposal in the light of my observations and findings.

(3.) On remand, notice was issued to the petitioner, proposing penalty to which the petitioner filed Ext.P8 reply. The matter was finalised by Ext.P9 where the entire stock was treated as unaccounted and penalty imposed in Ext.P6 was again imposed. The petitioner filed revision to the Deputy Commissioner. That was rejected by Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner filed second revision to the Commissioner. That revision was rejected by Ext.P13 order. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P9, P10 and P13 orders.