Double penalty bar under Kerala VAT Act not made out where same consignment was not proven and writ interference was declined.

Section 47(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 bars a second penalty on goods that have already suffered penal action, but interference in writ jurisdiction depends on proof that the same consignment was proceeded against twice. Here, the record did not establish identity of the goods or that the earlier penalty related to the same consignment in the same condition; there was also no supporting reference to the forest pass in the earlier proceedings, the goods were not declared at the check posts, and the later valuation materially differed from the earlier estimate. On those facts, the writ challenge was rejected and interference under Article 226 was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty levied under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the goods had already suffered penalty and were, therefore, protected by the bar against penal action.

Analysis: Section 47(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 prohibits levy of penalty again on goods that have already suffered penalty. The petitioner relied on the forest pass and the earlier penalty to contend that the same consignment was being proceeded against twice. However, the record did not establish that the earlier proceedings covered the same consignment in the same condition. There was no reference to the forest pass in the earlier penalty or reply, the goods were not declared at the check posts en route, and the value assessed at the later stage showed a substantial variation from the earlier estimate. On these facts, the credibility of the petitioner's case was not sufficient to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the penalty was rejected and the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.

---