JONY SOARIA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSESSEE is the petitioner. Revenue is the respondent. The matter arises in proceedings under section 29a of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Petitioner is doing business in rubber in the name and style of St. George Rubber Industries, Arumannoor, Kottayam. He is an assessee on the files of the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Kottayam.

(2.) ON August 4, 1994 the petitioner was transporting thirty-five barrels of "latex adhesives" in lorry No. KL. 5b-1861 under the cover of invoice No. 50 dated August 2, 1994 and the prescribed declaration to M/s. Prakash Paranda, New Delhi. The vehicle was detained and checked by the Inspector, Walayar check-post and it was found that the barrels actually contained centrifuged latex and not latex adhesives. Suspecting evasion of sales tax the Sales Tax Inspector issued notice demanding security of Rs. 47,775 and also advance tax of Rs. 23,888. The quantity of centrifuged latex under transport was 6,825 Kg. valued at Rs. 2,38,875. The Sales Tax Inspector intimated the detention of centrifuged latex to the Rubber Board authorities as "cess" is leviable on the same. The Sales Tax Inspector collected security deposit of Rs. 47,775 and also advance tax of Rs. 23,888. Before the enquiry officer the petitioner submitted that the goods intended to be sold were latex adhesives and not centrifuged latex and that centrifuged latex was loaded in the vehicle by mistake by the workers. The Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) did not accept the above explanation of the petitioner since the petitioner did not have any such explanation at the time of detention on August 4, 1994 and till August 13, 1994 when the goods were released after getting security deposit and advance tax. The enquiry officer held that the circumstances clearly showed that the petitioner was attempting to transport centrifuged latex under the guise of latex adhesive with clear intention to evade the tax due on centrifuged latex. The enquiry officer also noted that the Deputy Secretary of the Rubber Board, Kottayam had collected a sum of Rs. 23,576 towards cess on rubber on this consignment. It was also noticed that the petitioner's explanation before the Rubber Board authorities by letter dated August 10, 1994 was that it was due to inadvertence that the material was described as latex adhesives instead of centrifuged latex and also expressed regret over the incident and assured that such mistakes will not occur in future. The inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner before the two authorities according to the enquiry officer, clearly showed the deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax on the consignment of centrifuged latex. He accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 47,775 and adjusted the security deposit towards the penalty. This penalty order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the petitioner has filed this revision under section 41 of the Act.