Penalty under Section 67 survives where suppression is proved from seized records, not from mere best-judgment estimation.

Penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be sustained only on objectively ascertainable evasion or attempted evasion supported by materials, not on mere best-judgment estimation. Here, the penalty was based on seized records, inspection materials, and the dealer's own billing and package structure in a multi-level marketing model, with turnover apportioned from data rather than guessed. The concurrent findings of suppression of turnover and misclassification were therefore not disturbed, and the challenge to the penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be interfered with on the ground that the turnover and tax evasion were determined by estimation, and whether the findings of suppression and misclassification warranted interference.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings were founded on seized records, inspection materials, and the dealer's own billing and package structure in a multi-level marketing model. The turnover attributed to exempt and taxable goods was worked out from the data and the dealer's apportionment method, not by a mere best-judgment guess. The factual findings of suppression of turnover for the relevant periods and of misclassification were concurrently confirmed by the appellate authorities. The bar against estimation in penalty proceedings under Section 67 applies to cases where the authority substitutes rough guesswork for proved evasion, but that was not the position here.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty failed. The penalty under Section 67 was upheld, and the findings of suppression and misclassification were not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The revisions did not disclose any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings, and the penalty order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be sustained only on objectively ascertainable evasion or attempted evasion supported by materials, and not on mere best-judgment estimation; however, where the determination is based on seized records and the dealer's own transactional method, it is not estimation in the prohibited sense.

---