High Court of KeralaOT.Rev/157/2014dismissed

State Of Kerala v. M/S. Steel Emporium South Bazaar

2015-06-19Honourable Mr. Justice Shaji P.Chaly,Honourable Mr.Justice Antony Dominic3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/29TH JYAISHTA, 1937 OT.Rev.No. 157 of 2014 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.VAT 529/2013 of VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, PKD DATED 13-09-2013 REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: STATE OF KERALA BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:

M/S. STEEL EMPORIUM SOUTH BAZAAR KAKKAD, KANNUR - 2 - 676 306.

THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O.T.Rev.No. 157 of 2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2009 OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR.

ANNEXURE B: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2010 IN KVAT APPEAL NO.VATA 64/10.

ANNEXURE C: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2013 IN TA VAT NO.529/13 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.T.Rev.No.157 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic, J.

This revision is filed by the Revenue challenging an order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Additional Appellate Tribunal, Palakkad in T.A.(VAT) No.529/13 reducing the penalty of Rs.15,690/- imposed under Section 47 of the KVAT Act to Rs.2,500/-.

2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

3. Reasoning of the Tribunal is that the delivery note did not accompany in the consignment in question. There were other documents which suggested that there was no attempt to evade tax. It is on that basis that the Tribunal reduced the penalty.

In our view, this reasoning of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity for entertaining this revision. Revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes