Quasi-criminal penalty under Kerala VAT law cannot rest on unverified website information or suspicion without clear proof.

Penalty proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act are quasi-criminal and require clear, positive proof of statutory contravention. The Court held that a penalty cannot rest on conjecture, mere suspicion, or unverified website information about a machine's output capacity, especially where the dealer disputes the factual basis and denies the allegation. Because the notice lacked a reliable evidentiary foundation, the penalty order was treated as without jurisdiction and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could be imposed solely on the basis of website information regarding the machine's output capacity, and whether such penalty order was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings under Section 67(1) are quasi-criminal in nature and require clear proof of the alleged contravention. The factual foundation for imposing penalty must be established by positive material and cannot rest on conjecture or mere suspicion. Website information relating to merchandise does not carry a legal presumption of correctness, and no penal consequence could be sustained merely on the basis of such information, particularly when the dealer denied the allegation and disputed the factual basis of the notice.

Conclusion: The penalty order could not be sustained on the sole basis of website information and was liable to be treated as without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the penalty order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act can be imposed only on clear proof of the statutory contravention and not on mere suspicion or unverified website information.

---