PARVATHY FASHION JEWELLERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee, concerned with the shop inspection, the defects detected and consequential penalty imposed in the assessment year 2008-09, is before us with a belated revision. The revision itself was filed with more than 900 days delay which was condoned on terms. Since the assessment year is of the year 2008-09, we admitted the matter and requested both sides to get ready for final hearing.

(2.) We elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State. At the outset, it has to be stated that on a reading of the order of the Tribunal we do not see any question of law arising and not a single question has been raised in the memorandum of revision too. Even then we took into account the questions of law as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The questions of law raised on arguments by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are:

(3.) The revision petitioner is a jeweler carrying on its business as a partnership firm constituted in the year 1988. The petitioner admittedly carries on retail sale of gold and silver ornaments in about 600 sq.ft. spread over two floors of a building in the Central Junction at Pathanamthitta Town. On 17.01.2009 a shop inspection was conducted by the Intelligence Officer of the Commercial Taxes Department, along with Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence Wing, Kottayam. The petitioner alleges that the participation of the Intelligence Wing at Kottayam is strange, since it is not normally done. The learned Senior Government Pleader immediately countered that the Officers of the Intelligence Wing have state-wide jurisdiction. We are also not convinced that there is anything to be categorised as strange, since the inspection, as per the records, was carried out on information received of regular practice of evasion.