9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The revisional order is of the year 2007 and the appellate order is of the year 2008, both long before the consideration of STR by this Court - The review petitioner then relied on a subsequent order passed by the Intelligence Officer on remand, wherein the procedure contemplated under the Act was given a complete go-by and attempt was also made to reverse the findings rendered in the final order passed by this Court in STR; which was done on the false pretext of complying with the directions of this Court to re-do the matter afresh - There is absolutely no reason to review the order passed in S.T.Rev.No.11 of 2007 - The review petition is dismissed - Decided against assessee. - R.P.No.258 of 2012 IN S.T.Rev.No.11 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2013 - Dr. Manjula Chellur And K. Vinod Chandran,JJ. ORDER K.Vinod Chandran,J. The essential question that was raised and considered in the Sales Tax Revision was whether on the basis of suppression of turnover detected on inspection, the assessee; the second seller of goods taxable at the point of first sale, could be mulcted with the liability to pay tax, since the evasion of tax would be by the first seller. Definitely the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules"). The discovery of blank sale bill of the alleged first seller from the premises of the assessee, noticed by the Tribunal, was also taken into account by this Court. It was in such circumstance that the finding of the Tribunal, rendered on appreciation of the facts leading to the re-opening of the assessment, was confirmed and the Sales Tax Revision dismissed. 3. The review petition was filed contending that on the very same transaction the Department had taken proceedings against the first seller, one M/s.Star Trading and a penalty order and assessment order were passed, as evidenced by Annexure-G and Annexure-H. The review came before the Bench which rejected the Sales Tax Revision, on 26.03.2012 and the same was adjourned to 30.03.2012, on which date itself a counter affidavit was placed on record by the State, contending that the orders relied on by the review petitioner at Annexure-G and Annexure-H were in fact set aside by the appellate and revisional authorities in appeal and revision. The Department also took strong exception to a review being entertained, contending that there are no grounds made out to review the order. Subsequently though the matter was posted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly possible. It was also noticed in the final order of this Court, that the enquiry report was called for; with the intention to alert the authorities about the misuse of controlled commodities. But, the Intelligence Officer says so in paragraph 35 of the order: "The Investigation department had simply misguided the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as well as the Commercial Tax department by submitting fraudulent conclusions that M/s.Star Trading, HIG-37 is a bogus firm and all the transactions are fraudulent inland letter of credit transactions". The Intelligence Officer then goes on to state the proceedings with respect to S.T.Rev.No.11 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner and also notices the review filed by the assessee. In page 40, the Intelligence Officer makes a statement that: "The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has admitted the Review Petition filed by M/s.SATL and issued directions to the Government Pleader to get the fresh order from the Intelligence Officer (IB), Commercial Taxes, Kottayam". 7. The Intelligence Officer also refers to a writ petition filed by the assessee, numbered as W.P.(C).No.10789 of 2012, wherein a prayer was made to direct the Intelligence Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The letter said to have been issued from the Advocate General's Office has not been produced and we see that no such order was passed by this Court in the review petition. 10. As we noticed above, the review petition was not even admitted and the same was adjourned only on the request of the review petitioner. It is also pertinent in this context that the Intelligence Officer has issued notice to the review petitioner, purportedly on the filing of W.P.(C).No.10789 of 2012. We have called for the Judges Papers of the said writ petition and perused the same. No orders were in fact passed in the said writ petition also, in which the review petitioner claimed for issuance of a notice and hearing in the penalty proceedings initiated against M/s.Star Trading. The writ petition was filed on 03.05.2012 and on 04.05.2012 when it came up for admission, the same was merely posted after vacation. Definitely copy would have been served on the State and the Intelligence Officer proceeded to issue notice on 18.05.2012 itself. Then the writ petition came up on 22.05.2012, when the Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. On the next posting date, i.e., 24.05.2012, the petitioner soug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding with respect to the turnover found by the Tribunal and confirmed in revision by this Court, to be that of M/s.South Asean Trade Links, the assessee herein who is the alleged second seller. We feel that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ought to conduct an enquiry into the issues highlighted by us and as to the statements made by the Intelligence Officer in the order dated 30.03.2013 regarding the orders said to have been passed by the High Court, which we have found to be not in existence, and the communications from the Advocate General's office. 13. Now dealing with the review petition, what the review petitioner seeks is to review the final order passed in the Sales Tax Revision on the basis of a penalty order passed by the Intelligence Officer. Annexure-J is passed in total disregard to the final order passed in the Sales Tax Revision; though the said order was specifically noticed and read by the Intelligence Officer. We do not think that this would be a matter which would come within the contours of the jurisdiction conferred on us under Section 41(7) of the Act. The review petitioner contends that he has discovered new and important facts, which, after exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
