9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring for the respondents. Appeals arise from the suo motu revisional orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued under section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 cancelling the Deputy Commissioner's order in first revision and restoring the penalty levied by the assessing officer for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The appellant is a manufacturer of tread rubbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reducing the penalty and therefore the orders issued were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to invoke suo motu revisional powers, as the orders passed in revision reducing the penalty, were not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to him, the discretion exercised on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or purchase of raw materials for use in the manufacture of goods for stock transfer. In other words, concessional rate should have been claimed only for purchase of raw materials used for the production of goods for sale in this State. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant has led to loss of revenue which is the differential tax payable on the raw materials. This loss can be made up through t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay in payment of differential tax ranging from four to eight years. If differential tax and statutory interest thereon are taken as compensatory, the same will be more than the penalty levied by the assessing officer and sustained by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner had not restored the penalty by reversing first revisional order, obviously the State would have suffered loss to the extent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
