SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitions are filed by the very same assessee. The petitioner has been visited with penalty and the Tribunal has sustained penalty at the reduced rate. The years in question are 2006-07 and 2007-08. O.T.R. 90/2012 relates to the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner is a contractor. He agreed to execute work for the Janatha Service Co-Operative Bank, Vallicode, Kottayam for construction of the building. He received a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- in three instalments in the year 2006-07 and sum of Rs. 4,85,976/- during 2007-08. According to him, actual transfer has been effected on 22/7/2007 and the final bill was received on 17/8/2007. The Intelligence Officer, however, found that the petitioner had suppressed the above turnover and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,44,376/- for the years 2006-07. For the years 2007-08, the Intelligence Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 391,120/-. Appeal filed before the first appellate authority was unsuccessful. The Tribunal however reduced the penalty for the year 2006-07 from Rs. 1,44,376/- to Rs. 50,000/-. For the year 2007-08, penalty was reduced from Rs. 91,120/- to Rs. 30,000/-. It is against that the appellant came before us. Following questions of law are purported to be raised:

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the findings are unsustainable. According to him, this is a case where he has opted for compounding and he has paid the tax. He drew our attention to R. 11 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. Therein he relied on the first clause of second proviso which reads as follows: