KALYAN JEWELLERS KOLLAM Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is in respect of Ext.P3 revised order passed by the first respondent allegedly without giving effect to Ext.P2 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in this writ petition shows that, there was a spot inspection at the premises of the petitioner by the first respondent on 17/1/2012, when some incriminating circumstances were taken note of. Accordingly, notice under section 67(1) of the KVAT Act was issued proposing to impose penalty and after hearing, the petitioner was mulcted with penalty. Though the petitioner challenged the same in appeal, it did not turn to be fruitful in the first round. In the second round, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter vide Ext.P2 with some specific observations and directions, as contained in the Para 18 and 21; simultaneously reducing the penalty to the actual extent of suppressed turnover.

(3.) ON going through the materials on record and after hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the directions given by the Tribunal, particularly in the light of the observations in Para 18 and 21, if answered in favour of the petitioner, the quantum of penalty may still vary and as such, it was very much obligatory for the first respondent to have had considered and given effect to said observations as well. It is revealed from Ext.P3 revised order, that the question with regard to the said aspects, as referred to in Para 18 and 21 of Ext.P2 have not been adverted to by the first respondent. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent, who shall pass a 'speaking order' with reference to the above aspects as well.