9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to the physical stock found on inspection and issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he has failed to maintain true and complete accounts of his business during the year 1988-89 for which he is liable for penal action under section 46 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He was also called upon to show cause why prosecution steps should not be initiated against him. At that point of time the petitioner approached the first respondent with an application for compounding the offence departmentally under section 47 of the Act, wherein he has offered to compound the offence pointed out in the notice for a sum not exceeding Rs. 50,000. The first respondent accepted the said offer and issued an order dated October 31, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June 6, 1988 revealed certain irregularities and that on the basis of the application for compounding filed by the petitioner, the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I, Thiruvananthapuram, has compounded the offence for a sum of Rs. 50,000 and the amount was collected as per Receipt No. 173346 dated October 31, 1988. It is also stated that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that "the amount of compounding fee is seen fixed on the basis of the request of the petitioner". 4.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner has offered to compound the offence departmentally for the offence of not maintaining true and correct accounts and that he has offered to compound the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment by issuing an order and that order has been acted upon by the petitioner by remitting compounding fee by fixed in such order, it is not open to the petitioner thereafter to challenge the said order before higher authorities. Learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Sastha Trading Co. v. State of Kerala [1991] 2 KLT 875 and also the decision in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1995] 96 STC 21; [1994] 2 KLT 222. He accordingly submitted that there is no merit in this original petition and the same has to be dismissed with costs. 6.. I have considered the matter. This is a case in which the first respondent, Intelligence Officer, has found on inspection and verification of the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said section. What is provided in section 47 is for acceptance of the offer made by any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under the Act. Knowing fully well the provisions of the Act the petitioner has offered to compound the offence of not maintaining true and correct accounts for a sum not exceeding Rs. 50,000. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had a case that what was admitted was only the offence of not maintaining true and correct accounts and that he had not admitted the offence of any evasion of any tax payable under this Act he would not have offered to compound the offence for an amount exceeding Rs. 5,000. Further if, notwithstanding the fact that he has offered to compoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
