9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aler and it was accepted and there was exchange of money between the assessee and the authorities under the Act. Therefore, compounding the offence was complete. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person can object to such an order made by the authorities under the Act. 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 - 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. Petition dismissed. - WP(C) No. 19641 of 2003(L) - - - Dated:- 20-9-2007 - THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN For the Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI For the Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER O R D E R H.L. Dattu, C.J.: The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). He is doing business in the name and style of - Jaya Jewellers , at Palace Road, Thrissur. The business premises of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner/assessee had filed a Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Thrissur under section 36 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, after considering the various contentions raised and canvassed by the petitioner/assessee, has rejected the Revision Petition on the ground that the Revision Petition filed is not maintainable, since the W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 petitioner himself had compounded the offence departmentally in lieu of the prosecution proceedings. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is as under:- In the circumstances the Intelligence Officer came to the conclusion that the Revision Petitioner did not maintain true and complete accounts violating the provision of Section 27 of KGST Act which constitutes an offence coming under Section 46 of the K.G.S.T. Act. When this was pointed out, the Managing Partner admitted the offence and requested in writing to have the same compounded departmentally in lieu of prosecution. The revision petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs. One lakh towards compounding fee as per Receipt No.113256 dt. 18.10.1997. The revision petitioner now challenges the order of Intelligence Officer co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foregoing, I find that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his contentions. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Intelligence Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (viz., Exts.P2, P4 and P6 ), the petitioner/assessee is before this Court in this Writ Petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are not justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner/assessee solely on the ground that a revision petition cannot be filed against an order of compounding, since the petitioner cannot be aggrieved person as envisaged under sections 36 and 38 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner/assessee has every right to withdraw the consent made by him before the Intelligence Order and W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 therefore, the authorities are not justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions on the ground of maintainability of Revision Petition alone. In aid of his submission, learned counsel has brought to our notice the obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Revenue on application:-(1) Any person objecting to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 14A or under sub- section (1) of Section 35 or sub-section (3) of Section 36 may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, file an application for revision of such order to the Board of Revenue; Provided that the Board of Revenue may admit an application presented after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient cause for not presenting the application within the said period. (2) Such application for revision shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees. W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 (3) On admitting an application for revision, the Board of Revenue may call for and examine the record of the order against which the application has been preferred and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. (4) Notwithstanding that an application has been preferred under sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng committed an offence under the Act cannot be aggrieved person. 13. In the present case, an offer was made by the assessee/dealer and it was accepted and there was exchange of money between the assessee and the authorities under the Act. Therefore, compounding the offence was complete. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person can object to such an order made by the authorities under the Act. 14. As we have already noticed , the provisions of Sections 36 and 38 W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2003 of the Act authorises a person objecting to an order passed under the provisions of the Act, to file revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner of the Taxes. A person who has willingly offered and compounded the offence departmentally in lieu of prosecution proceedings cannot be a person who can object to an order passed under the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, both the authorities under the Act are justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the assessee/dealer. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee relies upon the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in Velimparambil Hardwares vs. State of Kerala ( [1994] 92 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
