ABOOBACKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions have been filed by the assessee, who is a registered dealer in cement on the rolls of the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode. The assessee was subjected to an audit visit, wherein it was noticed that he had filed untrue and incorrect returns for the months of June to March 2012. It was seen that even though the books of account maintained by the assessee showed substantial purchases and sales, the assessee had filed the return showing nil sales for the whole assessment year, except for the months of April and May, 2012. A proposal was, thereafter, made to assess the suppressed turn over which was determined by adding gross profits with the assessed turn over, which was finalised after rejecting the contentions of the assessee to the pre-assessment notice.

(2.) Since it was found that the assessee had filed fallacious returns, a penalty of Rs. 33,51,750/-, being the double tax sought to evaded, was also imposed under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ('the Act' for short). The assessee filed two appeals under Section 60 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12, the first against the order of the best judgment assessment completed by the Assessing Authority under Section 24 of the Act and the second against the order of penalty imposed under Section 67 of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order confirming the best judgment assessment was dismissed and the appeal filed against the order of penalty was modified substantially by the First Appellate Authority directing the assessing authority to quantify the turn over, for the sole purpose of quantification of the penalty, after verification of the documents, including purchase bills. The orders of the First Appellate Authority was challenged by the assessee before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode ('the Tribunal' for short). However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals confirming the orders of the First Appellate Authority.

(3.) The assessee has filed the above revisions impugning the common order passed by the Tribunal. We see that several contentions were raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had proceeded to consider each one of them in great detail. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the assessee had filed the return showing zero sales and purchases for a continuous period often months and that they had sought to explain it for the reason that they had done so to avoid penal action for failure to file return within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noticed specifically, contrary to the assertion of the assessee, that the return filed by the assessee was not merely incorrect due to inadvertence, but that it was deliberately done, so as to avoid payment of tax for the relevant months, as had been admitted by the assessee in their statement before the Assessing Officer.