9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order was passed by the concerned authority as early as on May 3, 2004, whereas the petitioner chose to approach this court nearly after two years. On this count also, interference is not possible. Under such circumstances, this court finds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to clear the outstanding liability by way of "three" equal monthly instalments - if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realising the due amounts in a lump. - W. P. (C) No. 7355 of 2006 (A) - - - Dated:- 5-3-2012 - P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J Sebastian Thomas for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing across certain discrepancies with regard to the transaction and accounts, the concerned authority imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,65,370 being double the amount of tax evaded in respect of the transaction and a further penalty of Rs. 10,000 for not taking registration under the KGST Act, obviously for the reason that the admitted sale consideration was more than Rs. 2,00,000, for which registration was a must. However, on filing revision petition, the said order was set aside by the concerned authority as borne by exhibit P2. Later, the assessment was finalised by the concerned authority as per exhibit P3, imposing a tax liability to tune of Rs. 82,686. The petitioner approached this court challenging the same, by filing W. P.(C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 21,75,753 instead of Rs. 2,17,555 as per the books of accounts. Exhibit P6 notice, though was issued inviting the objections if any, it is revealed from the materials on record that the petitioner did not file any objections in response to the said notice. There is no averment to the said effect in the writ petition as well. The assessing authority, in the said circumstances, passed the final order as borne by exhibit P7 dated May 3, 2004 accepting the figures as reflected from the books of accounts, as ordered by the appellate authority vide exhibit P4 and fixed the total tax liability at the rate of two per cent in respect of the second stage, i.e., the last sale of rubber in the State at Rs. 39,164 and surcharge at 10 per cent as Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gures, exhibit P7 order was passed by the concerned authority as early as on May 3, 2004, whereas the petitioner chose to approach this court nearly after two years. On this count also, interference is not possible. Under such circumstances, this court finds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the outstanding liability by way of "three" equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before March 20, 2012, to be followed by the remaining instalments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
