TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing 50 per cent of the value of the unaccounted stock. This is evidenced by exhibit P2 order dated 31st August, 1978. In revision, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax fixed the value of the unaccounted stock at Rs. 28,910 and on that basis limited the penalty to a sum of Rs. 14,455. In further revision, the Board of Revenue, by exhibit P5 order dated 1st April, 1980, affirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. At the same time, the Board of Revenue initiated suo motu proceedings and by a separate order dated 1st April, 1980, passed under section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, cancelled the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 30th July, 1979 and restored the penalty levied by the Intelli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant vehemently contended that in passing exhibit P2 order the Intelligence Officer did not apply his mind at all. It was argued that the total excess quantity of copra and oil were valued at Rs. 32,080 and the first respondent mechanically levied the maximum penalty of Rs. 16,040. There was no application of the mind in levying the maximum penalty. The Board of Revenue, by order dated 1st April, 1980, has restored the said order, though the Deputy Commissioner interfered with exhibit P2 order in exhibit P3 proceedings. Since there is no application of the mind, exhibit P2 is illegal and infirm. The order of the Board of Revenue is also vitiated in restoring the said proceedings. 4.. We see force in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or different aspects, were borne in mind in levying the penalty. Admittedly, the first respondent has not at all borne the above principles in mind in levying the maximum penalty of 50 per cent of the value of the excess stock in this case. There is no proper discussion or finding on the different aspects discussed above. Exhibit P2 order is infirm. The restoration of the said order by the Board of Revenue, by proceedings dated 1st April, 1980, is equally infirm. In this connection, counsel for the petitioner/appellant referred to us the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in O. Paramasivan v. State of Kerala 1971 Tax LR 1241. Issac, J., after adverting to the facts of the case and section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, observed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
