JOSEPH Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. Nos. 5020 of 1995, 5019 of 1995 and 5034 of 1995 in these Writ Appeals. The Writ Petitions were filed by the appellant against the common revlsional order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) The appellant runs a jewellery under the name and style 'M/s. Velliappally Jewels' at Palai. On 21.10.1986, eleven shops at Palai town were inspected by the Central Intelligence Squad, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam. It is admitted that on that day, the shop of the petitioner was also inspected. A shop inspection report (hereinafter referred to as 'SIR') (Annexure B in the Writ Appeal) was prepared incorporating the stock of goods available in the business place. It was signed by the appellant endorsing that he received the copy. In the 'SIR', it is recorded thus: "Separate receipt issued for records received.'' However, the appellant refused to sign the receipt for having seized the records. It is stated that ten records were recovered from the business place of the appellant. On verification, it was suspected that there was attempt of evasion of sales tax. The accounts of the dealer were verified by the Central Intelligence Officer, Ernakulam with reference to 'SIR' and the seized records. After hearing the appellant, the Intelligence Officer imposed a penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act'). The penalty proceedings were challenged by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, Kottayam, who as per his order dated 30.6.1988 modified the penalty. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kottayam was challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision and the order impugned was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. The appellant challenged the order of the Board of Revenue in O.P. Nos. 1555, 1556 and 1557 of 1991 before this Court. This Court set aside the orders passed in the case and remitted the matter to the Intelligence Officer for de novo consideration.

(3.) Thereafter, the Intelligence Officer considered the matter afresh and passed Ext.P2 orders dated 26.4.1993 imposing penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act. For the year 1984-85, a penalty of Rs. 41,396/- was imposed for violation of Section 27 of the KGST Act read with Rule 32 of the Rules on the suppressed turnover of Rs. 3,59,950/-. For the year 1985-86, the Intelligence Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,27,658/- being double the amount of tax due on the estimated suppressed turnover of Rs. 10,63,822/-. For the year 1986-87, the Intelligence Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,09,150/- being double the amount of tax due on the estimated suppressed turnover of Rs. 25,48,999.50. Ext.P2 orders were challenged by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam, who confirmed Ext.P2 orders by the common order dated 5.4.1994, marked as Ext.P3 in the Writ Petitions. However, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the penalty and imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,590/- for the year 1984-85, Rs. 63,629/- for the year 1985-86 and Rs. One lakh for the year 1986-87.