State Of Kerala vs. Hevea Crumb Rubber PVT. LTD - Kerala High Court, 20 October 2021

S.V. Bhatti, J. State of Kerala, represented by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ernakulam/respondent in TA (VAT) No.60/2016 is the revision petitioner and challenges the order dated 25.02.2021 in TA (VAT) No.60/2016 of KVAT (Appellate Tribunal), Kottayam.

Heard Senior Government Pleader Mr V K Shamsudheen for the revision petitioner.

The circumstances leading to the imposition of penalty on M/s. Hevea Crumb Rubber Pvt. Ltd., a dealer registered under CST Act, are stated in detail by the orders impugned before the appellate authority and the Tribunal. No omission or error in the narrative of circumstances leading to

O.T.(Rev) No. 94/2021 -3- the imposition of penalty is pointed out by the appellant. We keep in perspective the narrative of the circumstances referred to in the order of the Tribunal and for brevity avoid referring to all the details in our judgment.

1 The Intelligence Officer, Kottayam, through Annexure-A order dated 01.10.2012, corresponding to the year 2010-11, imposed a penalty of Rs.57,200/- under Section 47 and Rule 57 of the KVAT Act 2003. The respondent/dealer filed appeal against the order in Annexure-A and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) II, through Annexure-B order dated 13.06.2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the dealer/respondent. The dealer filed second appeal before KVAT Appellate Tribunal and, through order in Annexure-C dated 25.02.2021, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence, the revision at the instance of the State.

O.T.(Rev) No. 94/2021 -4-

2 The substantial ground canvassed by Mr Shamsudheen challenging the order under revision is that the obligation to carry all the valid documents concerning the goods under consignment has not been complied with, therefore, imposition of penalty is fully justified; the findings recorded by the Tribunal are sweeping and that the findings now recorded if are treated as a view taken by the Tribunal in issues arising under Section 47 of KVAT Act read with Rule 57 of KVAT Rules 2003, then the appellant would suffer irreparable injury and interest of Revenue is adversely affected.

We consider the first argument of the appellant, namely the obligation to carry all the valid documents concerning the goods under the consignment while transporting inter-State, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are in totality of circumstances and, as

O.T.(Rev) No. 94/2021 -5- a matter of fact, found that from the established circumstances that there is no intention to evade tax by the dealer, the circumstance warranting imposition of penalty is not attracted to the case on hand. This being a finding of fact available in the circumstances of the case, and in the juri iction of the Tribunal, we are not persuaded to interdict these findings of fact. Therefore, the first argument of the appellant is not accepted, firstly that a finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal and secondly the error pointed out against the said finding of fact does not come within the scope of our revisional juri iction under Section 63 of the KVAT Act.

1 Adverting to the second argument we appreciate the concern of the appellant. However, it is made clear that the conclusion or the observation recorded by the Tribunal shall be understood as having been made in the circumstances of the case and confined to the lis pending before the Tribunal.

O.T.(Rev) No. 94/2021 -6- With the above observation, OT Revision fails and accordingly dismissed. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj

O.T.(Rev) No. 94/2021 -7- APPENDIX OF OT.REV 94/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure A AOF THE PENALTY ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM DATED 01.10.2012 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 Annexure BOF THE ORDER IN KVATA NO.652/2014 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM DATED 13.06.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 Annexure ACOF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.02.2021 IN TA (VAT) NO.60/2016