ST SLEEBA STORES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN action under section 29a of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 with regard to the interception on August 1, 1988 by the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer, Munnar, resulting into the order of penalty (annexure D), an appeal therefrom to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of Sales Tax, Ernakulam, receiving endorsement and a further futile attempt before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam has come before us within the limited powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The above narration itself should speculate the course to follow in the situation.

(2.) IN the proceedings before the INspecting Assistant Commissioner (the trial authority), we find the factual matrix that Lorry No. KCF 4662, on checking, was found transporting 125 kgs. of jaggery from Marayoor to Cherpungal. Cherpungal is the principal place of business of the petitioner-assessee, M/s. St. Sleeba Stores. This transport was without any documents in regard to the goods being transported and therefore became a ground for the inspecting officer to form reason to suspect in the matter of evading payment of tax due in regard thereto.

(3.) THE enquiry officer examined the situation and by his order considered the factual position. THE officer considered the material produced during the hearing. He considered bill No. 1028 dated July 30, 1988 issued by the Kanthalloor G. K. Industrial Co-operative Society and it was rejected by the officer because he found overwriting by making the situation suspicious. On seeing the record, considering the statement of the owners, the officer found material sufficient enough to have reason to believe to proceed further in the matter. THE officer recorded a finding that the goods were being transported without any record in regard thereto, as provided and required under section 29a of the Act at the time of the check-up of the vehicle. This factual conclusion is recorded, as stated in the order, after considering the material produced before him in order to substantiate the argument. Ultimately, the amount of security was converted as an amount of penalty by the order dated March 8, 1989.