TRICHUR AUTO SPARES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This OT Revision is filed challenging the order dated 26.03.2013 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Revision petition are as follows; The petitioner is an assessee for the purposes of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and is engaged in the trading of automobile spare parts. The places of business of the petitioner were inspected by the Intelligence Wing of the Commercial Taxes department on 26.11.2009 and, on the basis of details gathered during the said inspection, penalty proceedings were proposed to be initiated against the petitioner for contravention of Section 40 of the Act read with Section 71 thereof dealing with failure to keep true and complete accounts. The proceedings initiated were in respect of the following offences that were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner viz.

(2.) The petitioner chose to have the offences compounded in terms of Section 74 of the Act and accordingly preferred Annexure-A application before the Intelligence officer who proceeded to accept the application and determine the tax payable as Rs.1,52,000/- and the compounding fee payable as Rs.1,52,000/-. The order of the Intelligence Officer is produced as Annexure-B.

(3.) On receipt of Annexure-B order, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority who, vide Annexure-C order, considered the matter on merits and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which rejected the appeal on the finding that, insofar as the petitioner had compounded the offence under Section 74 of the Act, it could not have challenged the order permitting the compounding of the offence by invoking Section 55 of the Act. The Tribunal also placed reliance on the decision of this court in Sreesastha Trading Company v State of Kerala and Others,1992 1 KTR 74. It is the said order of the Appellate Tribunal that is impugned in these proceedings before us.