TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fide belief that the transactions entered into by him would not attract the levy of sales tax. The respondent Sales Tax Authority, however, initiated penalty proceedings against him for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively. The proceedings culminated in Exts.P1 and P2 orders imposing a penalty on the petitioner for the aforesaid years. Although, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent against the said orders of penalty, the revision petition was dismissed by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3 order dated 27.11.2004. A further revision preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent also did not meet with any success and the same was dismissed by Ext.P6 order dated 17.03.2006. In the writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t sale were examined and in the cross examination it was found that they had not transacted any business as claimed by the petitioner and that the said persons were either close relatives of the partner or employees of the firm through which the petitioner conducted his business. 3. I have heard Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.T. Lilly the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the writ petition in its challenge against the orders of penalty impugned in the writ petition must necessarily fail. Against Exts.P1 and P2 orders of penalty, the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamined in detail is not seen to be true, the Intelligence Officer has conducted detailed enquiry; the Municipal records for issue of trade licence to dealers were verified for the years 1998-99 to 2000-2001, the records revealed that these buildings had not been given licence as business places as per Municipal records. Moreover, spot enquiry conducted by the Intelligence Officer revealed that the claim that all the purchasers of the petitioner stated to be from unregistered dealers with turnover above registrable minimum is false and fabricated and their claim of exemption on grounds of being second sales on the strength of the Hon'ble High courts Verdicts is found in admissible. As far as the purchases from T.sivakumar, another unr....