KISHORE RUBBER AND CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings relate to the imposition of penalty by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. 1, Kottayam. By order dated October 31, 1989 he has adjusted the security amount of Rs. 6,638 collected from the petitioner-assessee as penalty on the value of raw rubber of 2,000 kgs. at Rs. 44,249. 92.

(2.) HE passed the said order on the basis of the records. HE has recorded the following findings : " Records disclosed that the consignors had purchased 2,000 kgs. of raw rubber from M/s. Gopal Rubber & Chemicals, Cochin. It is not proved in the evidence that sellers have branch at Chingavanam. The consignors do not have branch or purchase depot at Chingavanam. HEnce the delivery of goods to the consignor from Chingavanam cannot be found as genuine. " Thereafter, the proceedings travelled before the first appellate authority - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. The appellate authority added one more reason to confirm the said order. It is as follows : " The findings of the Intelligence Officer is that the appellant had no branch at Chingavanam whereas he delivered goods to the consignee from Chingavanam. The transaction appears to be illegal. " Thus, there was a further travel of the proceedings before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. The Tribunal speaks about yet additional factors which are as follows : " Column 5 in the delivery note provides space for noting down the purchase details and consequential transport from outside stations when delivery notes are used for such transports. In the instant case there is no mention in the delivery note as to how and on what authority the goods were received from Chingavanam. Had the appellant got a purchase bill for the above goods prior to drawing the delivery note and transportation of the goods there was no difficulty or impediments in noting the above details in the relevant columns of the delivery note. Added to this the delivery note is dated June 13, 1989 and the transport is on June 15, 1989. The corrections in the delivery note also adds to the above defect. "