EMMANUEL SAREES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three consignments of ready made garments were intercepted by the Intelligence Wing in the Thrissur Railway Station. Those consignments were released to one who produced the consignment note which disclosed the identity of the consignor and the revision petitioner M/s. Emmanual Sarees as the consignee. Thereafter, notice was issued to the revision petitioner in connection with the enquiry for imposition of penalty. Revision petitioner did not respond to that notice. No objections were filed. No request was made for any further opportunity. Nor was any sort of participation made in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer concluded the proceedings. Penalty order was issued. The first appeal and the second appeal filed by the revision petitioner before the statutory authorities were rejected. Hence, this revision under Section 63 of the KVAT Act.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner quite in extenso. It is specifically pointed out and argued that there was no opportunity to challenge the veracity of the findings on facts and that the person to whom the goods were released, viz., one Mr. Dasan, had no connection whatsoever with the revision petitioner Emmanual Sarees. It is also pointed out that the materials could not have been relied on by the authorities to fasten the liability as has been done.

(3.) We see that the Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority have decided the case on the basis of the materials on record and relied on by the Enquiry Officer. We do not find any ground of appeal in the memorandum of first appeal or the memorandum of second appeal seeking any further opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid Dasan or to place any further material or for further opportunity of hearing or participation in the enquiry proceedings. Insofar as a revision under Section 63 of the KVAT Act is concerned, the jurisdiction stands regulated, limited and controlled by the statutory boundaries drawn within sub-section (1) of that Section. That revisional power does not extend to visit the decisions of the subordinate authorities except on grounds mentioned therein. It does not provide a full-fledged appeal. A question of law ought to have been left undecided by the second appellate authority or it should be a case where a question of law has been erroneously decided by that authority. See for support, Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. J. U. Pesticides & Chemicals (P) Ltd., 2010 (18) KTR 420 (SC).