Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KALLIYATH STEEL TRADERS versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KALLIYATH STEEL TRADERS v. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER - OP No. 9755 of 1999(J) [2007] RD-KL 1298 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 9755 of 1999(J)

1. KALLIYATH STEEL TRADERS
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 9755 OF 1999 J ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

In this original petition, the petitioner is challenging Exts.P3, P4 and P6 orders passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3, which are the original order, order in revision and order in second revision respectively, passed by the authorities under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Ext.P3 order was passed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1965 by which a penalty of Rs.14,500/- was imposed on the petitioner for discrepancy in stock found out on inspection made by the 1st respondent on 4.9.1992 as a result of which a finding that the petitioner has not maintained true and correct accounts was arrived at. The petitioner's contention is that although at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not able to satisfy the 1st respondent regarding the discrepancy before Ext.P3 order was passed he had produced the relevant books of account which would categorically prove the case of the petitioner that in fact, there was no discrepancy in stock. This question had been specifically dealt with in the impugned orders. In this connection, I may extract the following findings in Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent: OP.9755/99 2

" It is seen that at the time of inspection in the business place of the revision petitioner there was a physical stock of 15.015 MTS of 36 MM tor steel and as per the stock register produced at the time of inspection there was no stock. This evidently shows that there was an unaccounted stock of 15 MTS of 36 MM tor steel. Further it is seen that the authorised representative of the revision petitioners Sri.C.V.Cherian and confirmed vide his letter dated 29.6.1994 that at the time of inspection by the Sales Tax Intelligence Officer as per the stock register signed by the Intelligence Officer at the time of inspection there was no stock of 36 MM tor steel. The inspection was on 4.9.92. The accounts of the revision petitioners are seen posted for hearing on 17.3.1994, 29.6.94, 12.7.95, 12.10.95 and 14.2.96. The accounts were seen produced only on 14.2.96 by Sri.C.V.Cherian. It is seen that on 13.11.1995 ie., after 3 years an explanation to the SIR giving explanation for the 15 MTS and 15 KGS 36 MM tore steel found at the time of inspection. It is also seen explained by the revision petitioner that they were maintaining also another stock register for "own goods" and that this purchase of 15 Mts at 15 Kgs of 36 MM tore steel was entered in this stock register. Apparently this stock register was not produced at the time of inspection nor along with the said letter dt. 13.11.95 nor on 14.11.96 when the accounts are produced. In the circumstances, the contention that the difference (excess) found at the time of inspection related to goods purchased and accounted in the own stock register and that there was no surplus stock as alleged by the Intelligence Officer cannot be accepted. The contention that this stock register was maintained from 1989 onwards is not a ground at all for accepting the bonafides of the entries made in the stock register which was not produced at the time of inspection and even after that the imposition of penalty in the circumstances is justified and I find no reason to interfere. Revision Application fails and dismissed." The above would exclusively show that the petitioner's contention OP.9755/99 3 on the merits of the same was specifically dealt with by the authorities concerned and found against.

2. My jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while dealing with the challenge against the orders passed by the statutory authorities, is very limited, only to the extent of ascertaining whether there is any defect in the decision making process itself. Here, the petitioner is challenging the orders on merits against the concurrent finding on facts by three authorities. I do not think that I can upset such concurrent finding of fact entered into by the statutory authorities in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially in the absence of any allegation of mala fides. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

aks

S. SIRI JAGAN , J.

OP No.9755/99J

J U D G M E N T

17th January, 2007


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.