TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of centrifuged latex from field latex. The business place of the petitioner was inspected by the Intelligence Officer on 24.07.2004. Thereafter a notice under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred as the KGST Act) was issued proposing to levy a penalty of Rs.33 lakhs alleging evasion of tax. The main allegation raised against the petitioner was regarding stock variation of 849 barrels, with a tax effect of Rs.17,64,516/-. Another allegation was regarding unaccounted sales to M/s. Njavallil Latex (P) Limited having a tax effect of Rs.11,19,117/-. The Intelligence Officer also found out sales of field latex and centrifuged latex for Rs.3,60,625/- from partly used notebook and sales of Rs.1,21,522/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erification of the accounts. It is also found that in the stock register there were no entries of 835 barrels of normal latex. In that view of the matter the 3rd respondent found that the findings of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P6 was not correct, since it did not reflect the actual state of affairs. In respect of the transaction with M/s.Njavallil Latex (P) Ltd. also the 3rd respondent found that the finding of the 2nd respondent that the Intelligence Officer has not crosschecked the total purchases from the dealer by M/s.Njavallil Latex (P) Ltd. is not correct. As per the books of accounts produced there is no sale of centrifuged latex. That apart the dealer had not produced Form No.25 declaration before the Intelligence Officer for verific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he K.G.S.T Act. In regard to the first item of suppression of actual sales of normal latex, the main allegation was that the petitioner has not accounted for the purchase of 880 barrels of latex. According to the petitioner, 835 barrels were purchased from M/s. Neerackal Latex which is a sister concern and therefore it was not accounted for want of DRC content. In regard to the balance 45 barrels the contention is that those were purchased on 05.04.2004 whereas the officer had wrongly written as the same being purchased on 06.04.2004. It is relevant to note that two authorities i.e. Intelligence Officer as well as the Commissioner has rejected the aforesaid contention. But the petitioner relies upon the findings by the first revisional auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the stock contained in the said 147 barrels. The 3rd respondent however found that if there was any such claim on the part of the dealer regarding the stock of 147 barrels the same would have been brought to the notice of the Intelligence Officer at least when they filed their explanation on 28.07.2004. Therefore the said contention was an afterthought which should not have been taken note of the by the first revisional authority. 9. In regard to the third item the learned Single Judge had considered in detail the findings of the Intelligence Officer first revisional authority and the second revisional authority. It is found that the unaccounted of sales of cenex by the petitioner to M/s.Njavallil Latex (P) Ltd. cannot be confirmed and r....