TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders of the Tribunal for the years 1998-99 to 2003-04 are challenged in STRV Nos. 25of 2012 to 30 of 2012. The separate order of the Tribunal for the year 2004-05 involving the very same facts has been challenged in STRV No.31 of 2012. The substantial questions of law raised by the revision petitioner against the common order of the Tribunal are as hereunder:- a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the appellate tribunal failed to notice that the entire proceedings are finalized without verifying the books of accounts of the Revision Petitioner, which are in the custody of the Criminal Court? b. Has not the appellate tribunal failed to notice that the revision petitioner is entitled to pay tax under the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not on the basis of any valid material,is the specific contention. The questions of law raised are all with respect to the facts and this Court is called upon to look into whether the Tribunal's order is vitiated by an erroneous appreciation of facts bordering on perversity. It is trite that without any such finding of the Tribunal's order being vitiated by reason of perversity, this Court cannot interfere, with the findings of facts recorded by the lower authorities, sitting in the revisional jurisdiction conferred under section 41 of the KGST Act. 3. The appellant was not a registered dealer and it appears that he raised a contention with respect to payment of tax under the compounding provisions of the Act, that too in the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on. 5. The objection to the notice for the years 1998-99 to 2003-04, contended that the income of the proprietary concern, which had 11400 registered members, was only derived from lending activities which do not come within the purview of the KGST Act. There was also a statement that the revision petitioner had paid some fixed amounts to the sales tax authorities as per the scheme of compounding on account of Welgate Audio and Video Complex. However, no proof was produced. As noticed above when the contention of the revision petitioner was that he was not assessable to tax at all, it is not known as to why or how he has paid tax under the compounding scheme. The Intelligence Officer also found that lending of cassettes would come under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Intelligence Officer that the copies of the recovered records though tendered to the revision petitioner, the same were not acknowledged by him. But for the mere assertion that the recovered records dealt with the marketing projections, no serious attempt has been made to dispute the figures with reliable evidence. At the hearing, the revision petitioner merely reiterated his objections raised earlier. Based on the various recovered documents including check registers, inter-state purchase details, various agreements entered into with distributors, the details of stock retained by the company etc., tax evasion of Rs. 88,32,000/- was detected for the said years and penalty imposed at double the tax so evaded. 7. The revision petitioner w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... kept with the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, would definitely upset the applecart in so far as the enormity of the turnover adopted by the department. Learned counsel hence would pray for a remand of the matter to the original authority for reconsideration based on the books of accounts. We are not persuaded to make such a remand. At the persuasion of the learned counsel, we, however, by an interim order dated 14.8.2012 directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to verify such records retained in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and file a report before this Court. The report of inspection has been submitted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner dated 4.10.2012. He has reported that the enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fairly clear and evident that the revision petitioner had not applied for or obtained any registration under the KGST Act. The petitioner also has a very flimsy contention that he had paid tax at the compounding rate for the year 1993-94. The revision petitioner does not have any such case for the subject years in which penalty has been imposed. In any event the revision petitioner could not have paid tax under the compounding scheme without registration. The revision petitioner also, but for his assertion failed to produce any material to evidence such payment. 10. The appellate tribunal has conscientiously examined the case and come to the conclusion that the adoption of turn over by the Intelligence Officer is based on valid documents r....