S.M.M STEEL RE Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. IV, O OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 penalty order passed against him by the 1st respondent under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KGST Act'). The facts in the writ petition would indicate that during the year 2005-2006, based on documents collected from Commercial Tax Check Post, Karukutty, the books of accounts of the petitioner were called for and verified in the presence of the representative of the petitioner. On verification of the books of accounts with reference to the documents and material collected from the check post, it was found that certain purchase transactions had not been accounted by the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-2005. A notice proposing penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act was, therefore, issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted a reply seeking, inter alia, the details of the material relied upon by the respondents while issuing the notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order of penalty was passed by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order to the extent that, it had been passed without furnishing the petitioner with copies of documents that he had sought for, the petitioner approached the revision authority through a revision petition against Ext.P2 order. The said revision petition was allowed by Ext.P3 order, wherein the revision authority found that there had in fact been a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, and the matter was therefore remanded to the 1st respondent for a fresh adjudication after furnishing the petitioner with details requested by him or providing the petitioner with an opportunity for gathering the details before initiating further action. Consequent to Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent, by Ext.P4 notice dated 19.05.2009, furnished the petitioner with details of the transactions in respect of which allegations had made against the petitioner with regard to unaccounted purchases. The details provided along with the notice contain the vehicle number, commodity, quantity, value, the document such as invoice/chalan as also details of the consignor and consignee of the transactions. It is relevant to note that in all the transactions that were cited, the petitioner has been shown as consignee. The petitioner in response to Ext.P4 notice, submitted Ext.P5 letter reiterating the request for details of consignors, vehicle used for transportation, and documents which accompanied the transportation and also requested for cross examination of the parties. Thereafter, Ext.P6 reply dated 22.02.2014 was also submitted before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent thereupon issued Ext.P7 revised notice under Section 45A to which once again the petitioner submitted a letter asking for supply of documents that were relied upon by the 1st respondent while issuing the notice. Thereafter, the 1st respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner proceeded to pass Ext.P9 order of penalty, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The main ground of challenge against Ext.P9 order in the writ petition is that, the said order was passed without complying with the directions in Ext.P3 order of the revision authority, that directed the 1st respondent to furnish the petitioner with details of the check post transactions that had been relied upon for issuing the penalty notice to the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that, when, pursuant to Ext.P3 order of the revision authority, the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P4 notice, and thereafter, Ext.P7 revised notice, the petitioner had been furnished with a statement containing details of the various check post transactions that had been relied against him while issuing the penalty notice. The details furnished by the 1st respondent where, in my opinion sufficient for the petitioner to thereafter call for a cross examination of the consignors, who according to the Department had issued the invoices/delivery chalans showing the petitioner as the consignee. It is apparent that the petitioner did not avail this opportunity for cross examination of the consignors and it was under those circumstances, that the 1st respondent proceeded to decide the issue of penalty after taking note of the objections of the petitioner. On a perusal of Ext.P9 order, I do not find the order to be vitiated by any non-compliance with the rules of natural justice or jurisdictional error to warrant any interference in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P9 order, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.