SURESH LAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" and "the Act", respectively). The assessment order in question is 2009-10. The petitioner is conducting a metal crusher unit. Crushed metal was originally taxable under entry 97 of the Third Schedule to the Act at four per cent. With effect from April 1, 2007, granite metal was deleted from the purview of the entry, if it is produced with the aid of crushing machines and from April 1, 2007 it became assessable at 12.5 per cent. For the year 2009-10, the petitioner alleges that electronic filing of the return was introduced for the first time. It is his further case that with the help of the staff of the Department, in the monthly return, the entry generated was "industrial inputs coming under the Third Schedule" instead of "crushed metal". Resultantly, the petitioner would say that he showed the rate of tax at four per cent. On realising the mistake, the petitioner filed revised return on August 7, 2010. He paid the differential tax with interest and settlement fee under the second proviso to section 25(1) of the Act. The petitioner, in the meantime, had been issued with a notice by the Intelligence Officer proposing penalty under section 67 of the Act for filing incorrect monthly returns. By annexure A order, overruling the objection of the petitioner, penalty was imposed at Rs. 4,05,420 being double the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Appeal was unsuccessful. Annexure D is the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the decision to impose penalty, but reducing the penalty to the amount of tax sought to be evaded, that is, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,02,710.

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

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is only on account of the facts as aforesaid, that is, e-filing was introduced for the first time on April 1, 2009 and it was done with the help of the Departmental staff that the computer generated software showed the entry as "industrial inputs coming under the Third Schedule". It was accordingly that tax at four per cent was paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to rule 24D(4) which reads as follows: