2004 (2) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irst respondent. This is an order imposing a penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Exhibit P16 has a chequered history. Against the earlier order of penalty imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner had pursued the matter up to the level of revision before the Commissioner. That revision was dismissed as per exhibit P 11. Though it is stated as dismissal, it i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h orders after considering all those contentions. 6.. It is observed that the Intelligence Officer has passed orders in this case in a very casual manner. Rubber is taxable at the last purchase point, but the same has been shown as 'first purchase' in the proceedings. The suppression worked out is also incorrect as revealed from the Deputy Commissioner's proceedings. All these facto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resh orders are proposed to be passed by the first respondent, it will be done only as per the clarifications/directions contained in exhibit P11 order. As per exhibit P15 petitioner also made a request for copies of certain documents. Dr. Mohammed Kutty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the petitioner is entitled to get back the documents seized and only then the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner has got a statutory remedy. But it has to be seen that the petitioner had gone through the ladder once and this is the second round. As already observed above, the records seized had not been returned to the petitioner. The crucial aspects directed to be borne in mind by the Commissioner in exhibit P11 had not been adverted to at all. All that apart though the petitioner had specifi....