SALEESH K S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the three revisions, O.T.Rev.Nos.3 and 10 of 2015 are on identical facts. The same arose from penalties imposed under Sections 47 and 69 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('Act', for short) . We need not labour much on the specific facts, since the defalcation is admitted. Detention was made of a vehicle transporting taxable goods, timber. On verification, it was found that there were no documents supporting the transport. Proceedings were initiated and penalty was imposed under Section 47 on the petitioner as dealer and again under Section 67, on the dealer itself in his capacity as owner of the vehicle.

(2.) The petitioner/dealer had a contention that the lorry was half loaded on the previous night and in the morning, checking was carried out by the Intelligence Squad in the premises of the petitioner and then directed the vehicle to be taken to the Police station. The Department counters with the assertion that the vehicle was sought to be detained in the course of transportation, for inspection. The vehicle having not been stopped, had to be chased and waylaid before inspection was carried out. We do not intend to consider the allegations and counter allegations on this aspect, since both the lower authorities, the fact finding authorities, have found against the dealer. The question of law raised is only as to whether penalty could be imposed under Sections 47 and 69 of the Act, thus, in effect, mulcting the petitioner/dealer with a double jeopardy on the same defalcation.

(3.) Section 47 of the Act speaks of detention and inspection of vehicles, upon which any defalcation noticed would be intimated to the driver of the vehicle with a demand for security deposit at twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Subsequently, proceedings are taken under Section 47 with due notice to the dealer as also to the transporter, and on the defalcation found to be proved, the adjudicating officer is entitled to impose penalty at twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The security deposit, then would be converted to penalty to the extent it is imposed by the adjudicating officer. This is the proceeding that is challenged in OT Rev.No.10 of 2015.