TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... K. M. Firoz, SMT. M.Shajna, Smt. Ummul Fida And Sri.Ahamed FaziL For The Respondent : sri. Mohammed Rafeeq ORDER Vinod Chandran, J: The petitioner, who claims to be a casual dealer in chicken and has not taken out a registration, is before this Court challenging the order at Annexure A5. 2. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected on 24.04.2014 and a Shop Inspection Report [fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found to be Rs. 12,96,000/-. The penalty imposed was twice the tax due, i.e., Rs. 3,75,840/-. 4. The petitioner's claim of mortality at 25% and he is having business only to a turnover of less than Rs. 10 lakhs were negatived by the I.O. The I.O. found that the petitioner was not a casual trader and that there is continuity in the business conducted. The turnover estimated was Rs. 12,96,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even going by the modified order passed by the I.O. at Annexure A3, the total suppressed turnover was only Rs. 8,10,000/-; below the limit fixed as per Section 6(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity "KVAT Act"]. This Court is of the opinion that this could be an indication as to the total turnover of the petitioner in the first m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal authority had also found that the petitioner was importing day old chicken and rearing and selling them for meat. Section 6 of the KVAT Act is pointed out to contend that in the case of an importer or casual trader the turnover limit of Rs. 10 lakhs is not applicable. The petitioner, in any event, had to take out registration. 9. We are of the opinion that there is no question of law arising ....