ROMAI ELECTRIC VEHICLES PVT. LTD. Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT KARUKUTTY, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of penalty passed against him for the assessment year 2014- 2015 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the 1st respondent Intelligence officer had, based on a discrepancy noticed in the KVATIS system, between the figures in the returns submitted by the petitioner and the 8FA declarations that were filed by the petitioner before various check posts in the State, detected a suppression of purchase turnover, and consequently a suppression in the sales turnover for the year in question. After issuing a notice to the petitioner and considering the reply of the petitioner, the 1st respondent revised the computation shown in the original notice issued to the petitioner by reducing the figure relating to suppressed purchase turnover, and thereafter proceeded to compute the sales turnover by adding the Gross profit that was declared by the petitioner. The total tax sought to be evaded was then computed and twice the amount of tax was levied as penalty. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner, relying on Ext.P4 reply submitted to the notice served on him that, the 1st respondent erred in estimating the turnover for the purposes of levying a penalty. It is also his contention that the reply to the penalty notice was submitted before the earlier incumbent in the office of the 1st respondent and Ext.P5 order was passed by the subsequent incumbent. It is therefore contended that Ext.P4 order is also vitiated by non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein the sequence of events, which led to the passing of Ext.P5 order is narrated and Ext.P5 order is justified for the reasons stated therein. It is pointed out that after considering the submissions of the representative of the petitioner, the figures relating to differential tax were revised downward and it was only the reduced figure that was confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P5 order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.