9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a composite order passed, by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Alappuzha (3rd respondent), in revisions and exhibit P6 is a composite order passed by the Board of Revenue (Taxes), Trivandrum (2nd respondent) for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. We are concerned in this case only with the penalty levied as per exhibit P3 order for the year 1984-85 as affirmed in exhibits P4 and P6. The penalty was levied under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In the return filed by the petitioner for the year 1984-85, the assessee reported a turnover of Rs. 77,651.27 as total and taxable. On a scrutiny of the accounts and the information received by the assessing authority, it turned out that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 21,244 and notice was given to the assessee to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 42,488 (twice the tax sought to be evaded) should not be imposed on him for his wilful attempt for evasion of tax. After considering the objections of the assessee dated July 31, 1987 and August 3, 1987, a sum of Rs. 24,278, far less than the amount proposed, was levied as penalty by the 4th respondent, by order dated August 12, 1987 (exhibit P3). In revision, the third respondent by order dated January 27, 1988 (exhibit P4), affirmed the findings and the quantum of penalty. Similarly, the second respondent by order dated November 6, 1991 (exhibit P6), affirmed the findings of the authorities below and affirmed the levy of penalty holding that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty for the year 1984-85 is per se illegal, unreasonable and unjustified. The learned single Judge was in error in declining to quash exhibits P3, P4 and P6. 4.. We are of the view that the plea of the appellant should fail. Exhibit P4 is a composite order passed by the third respondent, dated January 27, 1988, for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. A perusal of the said order will show that the facts and circumstances for the two years are different. They are not similar. It was specifically found that the amounts received from the Alleppey Coir Mats and Mattings Co-operative Society and the Ambalapuzha Coir Mats and Mattings Co-operative Society, for the year 1984-85, which were not reflected in the accounts nor returned by the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t P4 itself that whereas for the year 1984-85 the amounts received were towards sale of goods, the amounts received for the year 1985-86 were towards a composite contract-sale of goods and for contract of work and labour. This makes all the difference. The finding that the entire amounts, which did not pass through the accounts, as mentioned in exhibit P3 order, from the two societies were only for the sale of goods, is seen affirmed by the revisional authorities in exhibits P4 and P6 and this is based on the basis of materials available in the case and after getting the confirmation letter from the two societies. 5.. In the light of the above difference in the nature of the transactions for the two years (1984-85 and 1985-86), the plea m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
