9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner had filed an application before the Intelligence Officer (Squad No.2), Department of Commercial Taxes, Thrissur, inter alia accepting that on the date of the inspection,viz., 13.10.1997, since there was stock difference, the books of accounts had been seized by the Sales Tax Officers; and that he would accept the omission pointed out by the Sales Tax Officers and therefore, he is willing to compound the offence departmentally by paying a sum of Rs.One lakh, by way of compounding fee in lieu of the prosecution proceedings. 3. After the receipt of the application so filed, the third respondent, viz, Intelligence Officer has passed an order dated 18.10.1997, accepting the request of the petitioner to compound the offence departmentally and also by accepting a sum of Rs. One lakh as compounding fee by issuing a receipt. dated 18.10.1997. The order passed by the Intelligence Officer reads as W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 under: "The above facts and figures go to show that the dealers have not maintained true and complete accounts for the year 97-98 violating the provisions of Section 27 of the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 which constituted an offence punishable under Section 46 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. In the light of the decision, the contention raised by the revision petitioner are not sustainable and acceptable. The contentions are therefore rejected. In the result the following orders are issued. ORDER No. R1-33/98 DATED 04.08.2000 In the circumstances explained above, the petition under Section 36 filed by M/s. Jaya Jewellers against the order read above is rejected. " 5. Again, aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thrissur, the petitioner/assessee had carried the matter before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, by way of second Revision in S.T. R.P.No. 177 of 2000. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by his/her order dated 04.05.2002 has rejected the Revision Petition. The relevant portion of that order is extracted below: W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 "If the petitioner had actually received 2605.400 gm of gold ornaments on the date of inspection as claimed, he had sufficient opportunity to establish the same before the Intelligence Officer. Besides, the petitioner had not raised any objection to the details of stock recorded in the shop inspection prepared at the time of inspection. As re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of this case. Hence they are extracted below: "36: Power of revision of Deputy Commissioner on application:-(1) Any person objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded under this Act for which an appeal has not been provided for in Section 34 or Section 39 may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order or proceeding was served on him in the manner prescribed, file an application for revision of such order or proceeding to the Deputy Commissioner; Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may admit an application for revision presented after the expiration of the said period, if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not presenting the application within the said period. (2) An application for revision shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and be accompanied by a fee of Two hundred rupees. (3) On admitting an application for revision, the Deputy W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 Commissioner may call for and examine the record of the order or proceeding against which the application has been preferred and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n shall be passed unless that person has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard. " 10. Section 36(1) and 38 of the Act authorises a person objecting to an order passed under the Act to prefer a Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, if for any reason, no appeal has been filed against such an order . 11. The question that would arise for consideration and decision of this Court in this Writ Petition is, whether the petitioner can be a person who can object to an order passed by the Intelligence Officer of the Department. 12. Admittedly, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Sales Tax Officers on 13.10.1997. After such inspection, they have W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 found out not only certain anomalies in the stocks but also non-maintainability of books of accounts by the dealer as required under the Rules. Nearly after five days from the date of inspection, the petitioner had filed an application before the authorities expressing his willingness to compound the offence departmentally. There was no threat or coercion from the side of the authorities, directing the petitioner to make any applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings. But it is open to the assessee to demonstrate by specific pleading and evidence in the assessment proceedings that the details or facts contained in the compounding proceedings are incorrect or untrue or the admissions and statements made in those proceedings were mistakenly made or rendered under peculiar context or circumstances. It should be so proved by cogent and substantial material. Vague generalisations or evasive W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 references or casting doubts will not be enough. " 16. In our opinion, the said decision would not assist the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, both the authorities, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner/dealer/assessee since we are of the opinion that a person in respect of whom an order of compounding made is not entitled to challenge the same by filing a petition under Section 36 or 38 of the Act. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, both the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
