Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.R.SURESH KUMAR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.R.SURESH KUMAR v. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES - OP No. 24017 of 2000(H) [2006] RD-KL 3806 (19 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 24017 of 2000(H)

1. K.R.SURESH KUMAR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :19/12/2006

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

.................................................................... O.P. No.24017 of 2000 ....................................................................

Dated this the 19th day of December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes restoring penalty levied under Section 45A of the KGST Act which was set aside in first revision by the Deputy Commissioner. On going through the impugned orders I find that the two authorities have entered conflicting findings about accounts on purchase of liquor by the petitioner from the Beverages Corporation covered by two invoices. The Deputy Commissioner in first revision verified the accounts and found that the purchases covered by the invoices are accounted in paged Nos.27 and 92 of the Stock Register. However, the Commissioner has in suo moto revision petition vacated the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored penalty because the Day Book or the Ledger did not contain entries about the purchases. Counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that Stock Register is the more important document which is attested by the Excise authorities. In view of the conflicting finding of two authorities, I feel atleast petitioner should be granted benefit of doubt, more so, because Department has accepted that the purchase is from Beverages Corporation and petitioner's liability is limited to turnover tax. In the circumstances and in view of the finding by Deputy Commissioner that the two invoices are accounted by the 2 petitioner in the Stock Register, O.P. is allowed vacating the penalty levied on the petitioner under Section 45A of the KGST Act. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.