2008 (2) TMI 828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RAMACHANDRAN NAIR J.-Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Appeals arise from the suo motu revisional orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued under section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 cancelling the Deputy Commissioner's order in first revision and restoring the penalty levied by the assessing o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reversed the order holding that there is no justification for reducing the penalty and therefore the orders issued were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to invoke suo motu revisional powers, as the orders passed in revision reducing the penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l be sold in or from Kerala. The appellant has no case that they were entitled to the concessional rate for purchase of raw materials for use in the manufacture of goods for stock transfer. In other words, concessional rate should have been claimed only for purchase of raw materials used for the production of goods for sale in this State. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant has led to loss of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atory penalty was levied only during 1996-97. In other words, by the time penalty was levied, there was delay in payment of differential tax ranging from four to eight years. If differential tax and statutory interest thereon are taken as compensatory, the same will be more than the penalty levied by the assessing officer and sustained by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner had not restored the ....