REETHAMMA GEORGE Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD II ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. He has challenged the penalty imposed under section 45a of the Act which was confirmed by the concurrent findings of the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the assessment is not complete, it is not open to the Sales Tax Officers to impose the penalty. Section 45a of the Act enables the authority to impose penalty if he has failed to keep true and complete records. As a matter of fact, a similar objection raised was overruled by this Court in Jyothi Laboratories v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I. T. C.) [1994] 94 STC 199; (1993) 1 KTR 500, where this Court held that section 45a is not dependent on the findings made in the course of the assessment. On the other hand, it postulates an independent proceedings either by assessing authority or by any officer not below the rank of Sales Tax Officer, with a separate hierarchy of remedies for getting redress under sub-sections (3) and (5) thereof.

(3.) ON the contrary, the case of the petitioner before the first authority was that they were unaware of keeping true and correct accounts due to lack of a proper advice which was rightly rejected. The dealer had admitted that their usual books of account were not complete. The finding of the officer is as follows : "she had deliberately and intentionally evaded payment of tax legitimately due to the Government and thereby committed the offence. The action in the instant case is objectionable and contumacious and this is a fit case warranting maximum penalty. " Turnover suppressed during 1992-93 is Rs. 17,38,490 and the turnover suppressed during 1993-94 is Rs. 45,25,430. The finding and conclusions were cogently considered and confirmed by the next two authorities.