9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner rejecting the revision filed by the assessee and restoring the penalty order under section 37 after setting aside the order of the first revisional authority. Find some force in contention of counsel for the assessee that the Commissioner has not considered the assessee's request for reduction of penalty because for both the years, maximum penalty is imposed and there is nothing to indicate that the assessee was involved in any offences previously. Besides this it is seen that at least in respect of one truck load of rubber transported outside Kerala, the assessee had to pay penalty in the State of Karnataka, thus taking all these into account, we reduce the penalty to equal amount of tax for both the years. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench decision of this court in S.T. Rev. 133 of 2006 (Alukkas Jewellery v. State of Kerala [2009] 26 VST 584) whereunder this court has explained the scope of "orders prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The facts that led to the penalty on the assessee in this case are the following. A truck transporting a load of rubber from Kerala to Tamil Nadu without sales tax records was seized alleging attempt at smuggling of goods under section 30C of the Act. The driver of the truck gave a statement that the rubber so transported belonged to the assessee herein and that he had occasion to transport five loads of tread rubber for the very same assessee in the very same truck outside Kerala, and that one such truck load was seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are in complete agreement with the argument of the Government Pleader because the driver's statement constituted an information which triggered a search in the assessee's business premises leading to recovery of business slips, two bill books and note book containing details of quantity of rubber purchased and sold and the release thereof. Search was conducted in the presence of the assessee and he has signed the shop inspection report. Since the search and recovery of records from the business premises of the assessee are not questioned it was for the assessee to explain the nature of business transactions entered in the search records which admittedly the assessee did not explain as anything unrelated to the business carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is prejudicial to the Revenue because the assessing officer is free to restore the original order. We are of the view that it is open to the Commissioner to examine whether the first part of the order setting aside the penalty order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if it is so, he is free to interfere with such order, if the grounds on which the order is set aside by the first revisional authority are not tenable. In fact a penalty order serves the interests of the Revenue because so long as it is not interfered with penalty levied will be recoverable as revenue due to the State. Once this order is set aside the demand raised by the State goes and therefore such an order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
