V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T. A. No. 299 of 1988 dated October 24, 1991. The petitioner is selling milk powder manufactured by Indodan Milk Products Limited and Foremost Dairies Limited. It is his case that he purchases milk powder from the depots of the above two manufacturers at Ernakulam who collect sales tax on the sales. Milk powder is taxable at the point of first sales in the State, by virtue of entry 122 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner is also a dealer in other items, viz. , spices, stationery goods and oils. The petitioner hired a tempo van bearing registration number KLG 7871 for effecting sales of milk powder through the van by employing a travelling salesman. On August 17, 1983, when the van was proceeding from Palakkad to Tirur, it was intercepted by the Intelligence Inspector at 8. 10 hours at Kallekkad. It is stated that the salesman was in possession of delivery voucher dated August 17, 1993. According to the petitioner, the bill showed the quantity of milk powder handed over to him for sale. It is further stated that the sale bill was also available with the salesman. The Intelligence Inspector signed the last hill issued on August 16, 1983. He seized the original copy of the delivery note book, which, according to the petitioner, served as a stock register showing the quantity of goods entrusted to the salesman. The Inspector thereafter issued notice to the petitioner stating that no records, as provided in the Act, accompanied the transport. The petitioner personally appeared before the Inspector and made representations. Thereafter, the Intelligence Officer made a surprise inspection in the petitioner's shop. The Inspector demanded security in the sum of Rs. 5,893. It was furnished. The petitioner's accounts were summoned on December 14, 1983. They were examined by the Intelligence Officer. Nothing was heard thereafter. Nearly a year after the event, the petitioner, on June 12, 1984, requested the authority to refund the security amount. He repeated the request on September 28, 1984, February 18, 1985 and June 15, 1985. The accounts were again called for and scrutinised on January 6, 1986. Even then, the authorities did not act in the matter. The petitioner sent a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposing to file a civil suit for return of the deposit illegally collected. It was thereafter an order was served by the Intelligence Officer on November 26, 1986. The order seems to have been passed on January 28, 1986. The security deposit was ordered to be converted as penalty. It is annexure VI, available at page 15 of the paper book. It is stated in annexure VI dated January 20, 1986 that at the time of checking of the tempo van, there was no record as contemplated under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and, therefore, the Intelligence Officer was satisfied that there is an attempt at evasion of tax in this case. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad, by order dated February 8, 1988, held that there was no attempt at evasion of tax and the imposition of penalty is not justified. He cancelled the order imposing the penalty and directed refund of the amount. In the further appeal filed by the State before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad as T. A. No. 299 of 1988, by order dated October 24, 1991, the Tribunal reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Intelligence Officer. It is the said order passed by the Appellate Tribunal that is challenged in this revision.

(2.) WE heard counsel.

(3.) WE are distressed to note that though the transport of the goods was on August 17, 1983 and the explanations were received thereafter, no action was taken in the matter for nearly three years and the order was passed by the Intelligence Officer only on January 20, 1986. The long delay in passing the order by the Intelligence Officer speaks for itself. WE do not think that it is prudent to make any further comment in the matter. The revision is allowed, with costs. Petition allowed. .