High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2021-10-28The court disposed of the batch by declaring th...

SMT. T.M. Usha Rekha Pharmaceuticals, Pudukkode, Palakkad v. State of Kerala represented by its Finance Secretary

Case / Petition Number:ST.REV NO. 13 OF 2016 (and connected cases)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. V. Bhatti
Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2021-10-28
Court Decision / Holding: The Revision/Appeal Nos. 13–16 of 2016 and OT Appeals Nos. 13–16 of 2017 are allowed in part. The orders in Annexures D, E and H are set aside; the matter is remitted to the Intelligence Officer for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Revenue is permitted to issue fresh reassessment notices, if warranted, and the dealer shall be afforded an opportunity to file a further reply within two weeks. If new material is introduced, the dealer shall have a right to cross-examine or rebut it. The Intelligence Officer must complete the re-assessment within four months from the date of the judgment. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: The court disposed of the batch by declaring the penalty orders illegal in the circumstances of denial of cross-examination, and remanding for fresh disposal with due process protections. The court allowed remand and potential fresh reassessment while safeguarding the dealer’s opportunity to respond and cross-examine new material; the matter to be decided within four months; costs none.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Smt. T.M. Usha Rekha Pharmaceuticals, Pudukkode, Palakkad

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Anil D. Nair
• Mekhala M. Benny
• O.A. Nuriya
• R. Sreejith Kumar
• Soumya Prakash

Counsels for Respondents

• Mohd. Rafiq

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch before the Kerala High Court concerns Sales Tax revisions under the KGST Act, 1963 and KVAT Act, 2003, arising from penalty orders for the assessment year 2000-01 based on undisclosed books recovered from an employee’s residence and sworn statements. The Proprietrix-dealer Rekha Pharmaceuticals contested the penalty (Under Section 45A(1) KGST) for alleged tax evasion, arguing a lack of fair hearing, particularly denial of cross-examination of the employee whose statement and the recovered books formed the basis of the penalties. The Department maintained that cross-examination is not an absolute right and relied on the material in the pre-assessment show-cause notice; it sought to sustain penalties using the recovered books and statements. The High Court treated a batch of ST.Rev Nos. 13–16/2016 and OT.Appeal Nos. 13–16/2017 as representative, evidence supporting fair hearing principles and the need for due process. Relying on Edakalathur Traders and M.K. Thomas, the Court held that cross-examination is not an invariable requirement but must be weighed against the statute and the circumstances. It quashed the penalty orders (Annexures D, E, H) and remitted the matter to the Intelligence Officer for fresh disposal with opportunity for cross-examination and additional replies, within four months, while preserving the State’s right to reassess.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala KGST Act, 1963 (Section 45A(1))Kerala KVAT Act, 2003Section 27 read with Rule 32 (KGST)Section 17(3) of the Acts (KVAT/related)Section 58 of the KVAT/related lawRule 15 (procedure)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

ipse dixit
fair hearing / natural justice
elasticity of cross-examination rights (as per MT Thomas v. State of Kerala)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The dealer contends that penalties imposed under KGST Act 1963, based on statements by Ravindran and books recovered at his residence, were without fair hearing. They seek cross-examination of Ravindran and the witnesses relied upon; argue that reliance on ‘shadow books’ and ipse dixit conclusions without cross-examination violates natural justice. They rely on Edakalathur Traders and MT Thomas to claim that cross-examination is not an absolute right but must be allowed where warranted by statute and the circumstances; urge remand to proper authorities for re-assessment with due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends cross-examination is not an automatic right and that reliance on pre-assessment show-cause materials and recovered books is permissible. It argues the right to cross-examine is not absolute and must be balanced against statutory provisions; it emphasizes that corrections can be made through proper channels, and that the primary objective is tax recovery, not procedural formalism.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Edakalathur Traders v. State of Kerala and another	(2004) 12 KTR 90 (Ker)	Positive	Cited for the principle that penalties in similar quasi-judicial proceedings require fair hearing and may be set aside if due process is not observed; supports the court’s emphasis on fair procedures.
M. K. Thomas v. State of Kerala	(1977) 40 STC 278 (FB)	Positive	Full Bench decision cited to articulate elasticity of the right to cross-examination in tax proceedings and not to treat it as an absolute right.
Appukutty’s case	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced in context of cross-examination rights but not a controlling rule in the judgment.
Shaduli’s case	—	Mentioned Only	Mentioned in discussion regarding the scope of cross-examination and due process.
Jayantilal Thakordas’s case	—	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate precedent on cross-examination, but not held as binding rule.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SMT. T.M. Usha Rekha Pharmaceuticals, Pudukkode, Palakkad v. State of Kerala represented by its Finance Secretary and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **ST.REV. NO. 13 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TAVAT 35/2015 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SMT.T.M.USHA REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **ST.REV. NO. 12 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 37/2015 OF** **S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SMT. T.M.USHA, REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -3- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ST.REV. NO. 14 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 38/2015 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SMT. T.M USHA REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -4- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **ST.REV. NO. 15 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 36/2015 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SMT.T.M.USHA, REKHA PARMACEUTICALS PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -5- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ST.REV. NO. 16 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 39/2015 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDITIONAL BENCH,PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SMT.T.M.USHA REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -6- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **OT.APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES,** **DTD 02.011.2017** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **SMT. T.M.USHA REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** ## **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS OTHER TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -7- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 OT.APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES,** **DTD 02.011.2017** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **SMT. T.M.USHA, REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS OTHER TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -8- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **OT.APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES,** **DTD 02.011.2017** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **SMT. T.M. USHA REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS OTHER TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.16/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -9- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 OT.APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES,** **DTD 02.011.2017** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **SMT. T.M.USHA REKHA PHARMACEUTICALS, PUDUKKODE, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **SPL. GP. FOR TAXES MOHD. RAFIQ** **THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH OT.Appeal.13/2017, 14/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -10- ## **O R D E R** S.T.Rev Nos.13/2016, 12/2016, 14/2016, 15/2016 & 16/2016, O.T.Appeal Nos.13/2017, 14/2017, 15/2017 & 16/2017 ## S.V.Bhatti,J. Smt.T.M Usha/Proprietrix of Rekha Pharmaceuticals, Palakkad was registered as dealer under the KGST Act, 1963, and continued as a dealer under the KVAT Act, 2003, is the appellant. The State of Kerala, represented by the Finance Secretary, is the respondent. For convenience, the parties are referred to as 'dealer' and 'Revenue'. 2. The details of assessment year, impugned order, date of assessment order, etc., are stated in the following tabular statement: ## S.T.Revisions under KGST Act **==> picture [427 x 134] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Assessment Kerala Value Sl. Year & Date of Order of Deputy Commissioner Added Tax S.T.Rev.No No. Assessment (Appeals) Appellate Order Tribunal 2000-01; AIT/ST/KVAT/LT Appeal No.STA T.A No.35/2015; 1. 13/2016 10.03.2014 74/14; 15.10.2014 31.07.2015 **----- End of picture text -----** ## ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -11- **==> picture [427 x 219] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 2001-02; AIT/ST/KVAT/LT Appeal No.STA T.A No.36/2015; 2. 15/2016 10.03.2014 75/14; 15.10.2014 31.07.2015 2002-03; AIT/ST/KVAT/LT Appeal No.STA T.A No.37/2015; 3 12/2016 10.03.2014 76/14; 15.10.2014 31.07.2015 T.A No.38/2015; 2003-04; AIT/ST/KVAT/LT Appeal No.STA 4. 14/2016 10.03.2014 77/14; 15.10.2014 31.07.2015 2004-05; AIT/ST/KVAT/LT Appeal No.STA T.A No.39/2015; 5. 16/2016 10.03.2014 78/14; 15.10.2014 31.07.2015 **----- End of picture text -----** ## O.T. Appeals under KVAT Act. **==> picture [427 x 352] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Assessment Order of Deputy Order of the State Sl. Year & Date O.T.Appeal Commissioner of Goods & Service No. of penalty No. Commercial Taxes Taxes Order R1-26320/14 to 2005-06; KVAT Revition No.1/2014; 1. 26322(A)/14/CT ; 13/2017 10.03.2014 19.08.2014 02.11.2017 R1-26320/14 to 2006-07; KVAT Revition No.2/2014; 2. 26322(A)/14/CT ; 14/2017 10.03.2014 19.08.2014 02.11.2017 R1-26320/14 to 2007-08; KVAT Revition No.3/2014; 3. 26322(A)/14/CT ; 15/2017 10.03.2014 19.08.2014 02.11.2017 R1-26320/14 to 2008-09; KVAT Revition No.4/2014; 4. 26322(A)/14/CT ; 16/2017 10.03.2014 19.08.2014 02.11.2017 **----- End of picture text -----** ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2.1 The circumstances relevant for disposing of the batch of cases and the issues in fact and law are substantially the same and similar in the batches of cases. S.T.Rev No.13/2016 has been treated as representative revision, circumstances, etc., covered by the said revision are adverted to in this common judgment and would be sufficient for disposing of the other revisions/appeals as well. S.T.Rev 13/2016 3. The dealer is a proprietary concern, engaged in the manufacturing and trading of Ayurvedic medicines. On 13.09.2010, the Revenue, through its inspection/vigilance squad, inspected the business premises and residence of the dealer. According to the dealer, on 13.09.2010, the Revenue claims to have searched the residential premises of one Mr. K.Raveendran, Kallepilly House, II/180, Kottekkadu, Kannambra P.O, Palakkadu, an employee of the dealer. The ## ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -13- accounts and ledgers of the dealer between the period of 200001 and 2008-09, are stated to have been seized from the house of K.Ravindran. The Intelligence Officer, Squad No.III, Thrissur, thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under Section 45A(1) of the KGST Act, 1963 by issuing notice in Anneuxre-A dated 12.03.2012. The operative portion of the notice on which both the counsel have relied on is excerpted ## hereunder: “Detailed verification consequent to the inspections revealed serious irregularities involving substantial amount of tax evasion and for this reason a summons in Form No.22 was issued calling upon the dealer to produce the Books of Accounts for detailed verification. Subsequently Sri K.Gireesh, Manager appeared on 0703-2011 but not produced any books of accounts. It has been stated by Sri. Gireesh, Manager that, the books of accounts might be at the office of the auditor or at Advocate or may be destroyed by the former manager and the remaining books of accounts relating to the business were seized by the commercial Tax authorities on the day of inspection itself, he has nothing to produce before the intelligence Officer and he expressed his willingness for verifying the books of ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -14- accounts in the presence of him and verification done at his presence. Verification of books of accounts, recoveries along with the monthly returns in Form No.9 revealed stunning case of Max fraud done by the dealer. xx x xxx xxx From the above it is evident that the books of accounts recovered from the house of Sri. K. Ravindranare the parallel set of accounts maintained by the dealer and kept for safe custody at the residence of Sri, K. Ravindran. Sri Ravindran also admits this in his sworn statement dtd 13-09-2010 in which he stated that before seven months back Smt. T.M. Usha and her husband came to his house in company vehicle and directed him to keep the books of accounts related to Rekha Pharmaceuticals for the years 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 for safe custody. Hence it is evident that the dealer is maintaining parallel set of accounts for the year 2000-2001 out of the regular books of accounts. The suppressed sales turnover as per the recovery is over and above the sales turnover returned before the Commercial Tax Officer, Alathur for the year 2000-2001.” 4. The dealer through Annexure-B dated 19.03.2012, contested the penalty proceedings initiated through Annexure-A. The reply of the dealer to the extent required or the legal ground canvassed basing on the reply, is stated ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -15- ## hereunder: “I am in receipt of the above notice and the copies of the records claimed to have relied for the preparation of the notice. Primaface the copy of the records made available to me are found not related to my business in any manner. None of the records are related to my business or recovered from my business place or recovered during the house raid in my residence. The proposal and findings in the notice are very strange and unlawful and against the basic principles of Indian evidence Act or KVAT Act, and the rules made thereunder. xxx xxx xxx The Intelligence Officer is attributing the irregularity in the books of accounts alleged to have recovered from Sri. K. Raveendran Kalleppilly Kottekkadu Kannampara P.O., Palakkad. It is true that he was my employee. But I have no business relation with the above Raveendran and have no connection with the books of accounts maintained and kept by Sri. Raveendran in his personal capacity. We have no employee by name Sri. Krishnakumar I.S.. I am not a trader of Ayurveda medicines. We are preparing Ayurveda medicines in the traditional method and is issued to the patients of my husband both local and from other various places as a part of his medical profession. xxx xxx xxx The Intelligence Officer cannot make me liable for the books of accounts recovered from the residence of Sri. K. Raveendran, who is not my business associate. The ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -16- Intelligence Officer is proceeding against me on the basis of the statement given by Sri. K. Raveendran and one Sri. Krishnakumar I.S.. If so I may be given an opportunity to cross examine the said Raveendran for ascertaining the correctness of the statement given by him. The sworn statement said to have recorded from Sri K. Raveendran cannot be used against me unless and until a chance is given to cross examine him in this connection. The law of the land also confers us the right to cross examine the persons and records relied by your good self to arrive such negative inferences against us. Such negative inferences can be arrived against us only after the detailed cross examination of the persons and the records relied by your good self. It is the natural justice and the basic rights of us to cross examine the persons and the records relied by your good self for making allegations. In the circumstances we may state that the notice issued by your good self is not sustainable in the eye of law since it is issued without cross examining the persons and the records relied by your good self. xxx xxx xxx From this it very clear that this is a story fabricated to put me in some unpleasant situation. In this circumstance it is just and proper to issue copies of the entire recoveries from the house of Sri. K. Raveendran along with copies of the following documents and records for furnishing detailed objection in the matter.” ## 5. The dealer through Annexure-C dated 28.11.2012, ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** before the Intelligence Officer, further objected to the continuation of the penalty proceedings either on the statement given by Ravindran or the books said to have been seized from the house of Ravindran, by treating the seized books as shadow books maintained by the dealer. “The Intelligence Officer is proceeding against me on the basis of the statement given by Sri. K. Raveendran and one Sri. Krishnakumar. If so I may be given an opportunity to cross examine the said Raveendran and Krishnakumar for ascertaining the correctness of the statement given by them. The sworn statement said to have recorded from Sri. K. Raveendran and Krishnakumari cannot be used against me unless and until a chance is given to cross examine them in this connection. The law of the land also confers us the right to cross examine the persons and records relied by your good self to arrive such negative inferences against us.” 6. The Intelligence Officer excerpted the circumstances noted in the show-cause notice in Annexure A and the reply given by the dealer in Annexure-B and C and, concluded the penalty against the dealer, the operative portion for levying the penalty is excerpted hereunder: ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -18- “From the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the dealer had carried out purchases and sales outside the regular books of accounts and not maintained true correct and complete accounts and submitted untrue return of the business for the year 2000-2001 and have not paid the actual tax due to the State exchequer. Nonmaintenance of true and correct accounts is a violation of Section 27 read with Rule 32 Which warrants maximum penalty U/S.45A(1) of the KGST Act. 1963. In the circumstances; 1, hereby propose to impose a penalty of Rs 14,99.967 (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only) being twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded on you under section 45A(1) of the KGST Act 1963 for the said offence for the year 2000-2001. However she was given an opportunity to be heard in person on 30-11-2012 at 11 a.m. in the office of the undersigned. But the dealer filed a reply dated 30-11-2012 and demanded to provide a chance for cross examining the persons whom the department has claimed to have given the statements which is being used for proposing the penalty as per the notice. It is a settled position in quasi proceedings that demand for cross examinations cannot be raised as a matter of right by any parties. Here in this case the undersigned has not used the testimony or oral evidence of Sri K.Raveendran and Smt Krishnakumari. S. against Rekha Pharmaceuticals. Pudukode. Palakkad. It has been provided in ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -19- Indian Evidence Act 1872 that unless a witness has been examined in chief, there arises no question of his cross examination. ## - - - - - Order No. IT/IO III/28/10 11(2000 2001) dated 10 03 2014 For the reasons stated above, by virtue of the authority conferred upon me U/s 45A (1) of the KGST Act 1963. I hereby impose an amount of Rs. 14.99,967/(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) as penalty being double the amount of tax evaded for the year 2000-01 to Smt. T.M. Usha, Propritrix Rekha Pharmaceuticals, Pudukkode, Palakkad. Oct 29, 2021, 12:49 The Penalty shall be paid as per the demand notice attached herewith.” 7. The dealer being aggrieved by Annexure-D penalty order filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam. The Appellate Authority through order in Annexure-E dated 15.10.2014, accepted the argument of the dealer that the levy or imposition of penalty by the Revenue particularly by referring either to the statement and/or of books seized from the residence of K.Ravindran is illegal, unsustainable and these circumstances ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** do not attract to the ingredients warranting imposition of penalty. The dealer admittedly has requested the Primary Authority for affording an opportunity to cross-examine Ravindran before any reliance either on the statement or books recovered from his house is made by the Department. The reason for refusing such a request is already dealt with while dealing with the order in Annexure-D. For brevity, the same is not adverted to once again. 8. The Revenue filed appeal before the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad, and through the order dated 31.07.2015, was allowed. Hence the revisions/appeals at the instance of the dealer. 9. Adv.Anil D Nair appearing for the dealer argues that the penalty imposed through Annexure-D order is an _ipse dixit_ order and the procedure followed is vitiated while making the order in Annexure-D dated 10.03.2014, inasmuch as from the ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** very circumstance referred to in the pre-assessment notice in Annexure- A dated 12.03.2012 would go to show that penalty proceedings are initiated on the statement of Ravindran and the books, alleged to have been seized from the house of Ravindran. The dealer, except admitting the relationship of the dealer and said Ravindran as employer and employee, did not admit any of the allegations constituting initiations of action for penalty. The Intelligence Officer in ultimate analysis fastened the liability of the penalty only from the books of accounts recovered from the house of K.Ravindran. The admission of K.Ravindran, statement dated 13.09.2010, that a few months before the date of search the proprietrix and her husband had come to the house of K.Ravindran and kept the custody of books with him is not an admission by the dealer, at best the version of Ravindran constitutes a statement concerning the Dealer. From this circumstance alone a finding that the dealer is maintaining a parallel set of accounts for the ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** years under reference has been recorded. The opportunity in Annexure-A given was for the production of accounts by the dealer. According to Mr.Anil D Nair the dealer has submitted the accounts, returns and the subject enquiry does not relate to the details already filed by the dealer with the Department. The denial of the right to cross-examination of Ravindran and/or imposition of penalty on materials/ books recovered behind the back of the dealer resulted in deviation from the procedure stipulated for conducting enquiry on this behalf, and the orders of penalty suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and is prejudiced. The Tribunal without appreciating the of events examined the for cross- sequence request examination and denial thereon, from all together a different perspective away from minimum requirement of fair play. He refers to and relies on the operative portion of the judgment of this Court in **Edakalathur Traders Vs. State of Kerala and another[1]** which reads as under: > 1 (2004)12 KTR 90 (Ker) ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -23- “O.P No.28293/1999 has been filed to quash the two penalty orders. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though it had submitted replies by against the show cause notices seeking for opportunity to cross-examine certain persons and also for furnishing certain documents, the assessing authority passed the penalty orders without affording any such opportunity. The assessing authority had committed the same mistake in this proceeding also. The petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the penalty proceedings. The impugned penalty orders are set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed after giving replies to replies against the show cause notices.” He prays for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 10. Mr. Muhammed Raffiq, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) contends that the dealer, as a matter of right, is not entitled to cross-examination of a person who has given statement to the Revenue. In the case on hand, the dealer is confused between the statement of Ravindran and the material recovered from the house of Ravindran. According to Mr. Muhammed Raffiq, the pre-assessment show cause notice refers to the details noticed by the Revenue against the dealer ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -24- from the Books recovered from Ravindran and the burden is on the dealer to discharge that the accounts are maintained in the regular course of business, and in this case, the dealer has failed to discharge the burden. The right to cross-examination according to the dictum by this Court in **M.K.Thomas v. State of Kerala[2]** is not an absolute right vested in a dealer. He commends to the court the following paragraphs from M.K Thomas case: “20. That the decision in Appukutty's caset had been qualified by the decision in Shaduli's case was not pointedly or specifically noticed. Fazal Ali, J., who discussed the position, rejected at page 487 the argument advanced on behalf of the State that as the technical rules of evidence did not strictly apply, the right of cross-examination cannot be demanded by the assessee in a proper case, governed by a particular statute. At page 488, the learned Judge observed: "It is true that the words 'opportunity of being heard' are of very wide amplitude but in the context the sales tax proceedings which are quasi-judicial proceedings all that the court has to see is whether the assessee has been given a fair hearing. Whether the hearing would extend to the right of demanding cross-examination of witnesses or not would naturally depend upon 2 (1977) 40 STC 278 (FB) ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -25- the nature of the materials relied upon by the sales tax authorities, the manner in which the assessee can rebut those materials and the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application." 21. Adverting to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Jayantilal Thakordas's case, it was observed that it did not appear that the assessee had at any time made a specific prayer for cross-examining the party in question. It was made clear that the Supreme Court cannot endorse the extreme position that the right of cross examination in the circumstances noticed, stood completely excluded. Reference was made to Appukutty's case and it was observed that the decision was substantially correct and in consonance with the language of section 17(3) and the proviso thereto (underlining ours). At page 492, the learned Judge observed: "Thus on a true interpretation of section 17(3), the proviso thereto and rule 15, the inescapable conclusion would be that the assessee has been given a statutory right to prove the correctness of his return by showing that the materials on the basis of which his return is found to be incorrect or incomplete are wrong and if for this purpose the assessee makes an express prayer for cross-examining the wholesale dealers whose accounts formed the sheet-anchor of the notice issued to the assessee, he is undoubtedly entitled to cross-examine such wholesale dealers." 22. We do not, with respect, understand the decision of - the Supreme Court, as recognising a right of cross ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -26- examination as an invariable attribute of the requirement of reasonable opportunity under section 17(3) of the Act. We rather understand the rule to have been stated with sufficient elasticity and amplitude as to make the right depend on the terms of the statute, the nature of the proceeding or of the function exercised, the conduct of the party, and the circumstances of the case. We are clear that on the facts disclosed, the petitioner in these revision cases is not entitled to demand a right of cross-examination of Pappachan either as part of the reasonable opportunity under section 17(3) of the Act, or on the rules of natural justice. We dismiss these tax revision cases with no order as to costs.” 11. Therefore on the ground of denial of the request for cross-examination of Ravindran, the orders impugned in the revision do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Without prejudice to the above argument, it is alternatively argued that the Deputy Commissioner/ the Appellate Authority fell in a serious error by straight away setting aside the penalty imposed through Annexure-D order dated 10.03.2014, inasmuch as one of the strong reasons which weighed with the Appellate Authority ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -27- was the denial of the right to cross-examination claimed by the dealer. Assuming without admitting, the Appellate Authority found that for the enquiry now being held in penalty proceedings, the dealer ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine Ravindran, the omission in providing such an opportunity does not render the order in Anneuxre-D illegal on merits touching the penalty and could not have been set aside in its entirety. On the contrary, the matter ought to have been remitted to the Primary Authority for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with the applicable procedure under GST and KVAT Act. According to him the possession of the material in the form of books can be used by the Revenue in more than one way to appreciate the circumstance contemplated in the imposition of penalty on the dealer. But exoneration of dealer from the penalty by the appellate authority is unsustainable. In other words, it is argued that the matter ought to have been remitted to the ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Primary Authority for reconsideration from the stage where it is interdicted, by the Appellate Authority on the ground of denial of request for cross-examination as erroneous. 12. We have taken note of the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties. The short point for consideration is whether the imposition of penalty subsequent to and by referring to the statement/material/Books recovered on 13.09.2010 from the house of K. Ravindran and in the circumstances of these cases, whether the right of the dealer to cross-examine K.Ravindran is tenable or not. To appreciate the above point, we refer to the circumstances borne out in Annexure A notice dated 12.03.2012. The Revenue has categorized the recoveries of books under the 3 categories: 1) from Mrs.Rekha Pharmaceuticals, Palakkad, 2) from the residence of the proprietrix of the registered dealer, 3) from Mr.K.Ravindran from Palakkad, an employee of the dealer. The analysis in the show-cause notice refers to the books of ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -29- account recovered from the house of Ravindran. Variation between the figures shown in the returns filed by the dealer and the details noticed from the books of accounts recovered from the house of Ravindran constituted the basis for penalty proceedings. The reply of the dealer is excerpted above and on material facts and accusations made against the dealer, the dealer has not only denied the veracity of the statement and books of account relied on by the Revenue but requested an opportunity of cross-examination if the Revenue desires to proceed on the statement of Ravindran or the books of account recovered from the house of Ravindran. The order dated 10.03.2014 in Annexure-D imposes a penalty by completely accepting details noted from the books of account recovered from the house of Ravindran. The broad test in matters of present nature is the nature of the interest affected by the decision, and whether the decision relates to the imposition of a detriment on an individual e.g. penalty, sanction or ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -30- cancellation, then the requirement to follow minimum procedure while making such decision is required. The paradigm situation in which the duty to act fairly will apply, is where a decision-maker is taking a decision that will or may have an adverse impact on the dealer. The Full Bench in _Thomas case_ has noted and held that, “We do not, with respect, understand the decision of the Supreme Court, as recognising a right of cross-examination as an invariable attribute of the requirement of reasonable opportunity under section 17(3) of the Act. We rather understand the rule to have been stated with sufficient elasticity and amplitude as to make the right depend on the terms of the statute, the nature of the proceeding or of the function exercised, the conduct of the party, and the circumstances of the case.” Ultimately the right is dependant on nature of the proceeding, or of the function exercised; the conduct of the party and the circumstances of the case. So now we have to ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** examine whether the circumstances of the case are persuasive enough to consider whether the denial of right to cross examine Ravindran has resulted in prejudice to the Dealer. The crucial aspect of the matter at this stage is, these books have been recovered behind the back of the dealer. On this either aspect, the argument of Mr. Anil D Nair is contextual to be noted to wit that there is no prohibition for the Revenue to collect or gather information against the dealer, but any material relied on by the Department must be put to the dealer and if the material is contested, the semblance of fair play and procedure are followed before accepting material gathered behind the back of the dealer as constituting the basis for imposition of penalty. The test here is not only the procedural impropriety but the real prejudice in accepting extraneous and other relevant material constituting the basis for imposing penalty. He argues that M.K Thomas case has not laid down a proposition which bars a request of the dealer ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -32- either for cross-examination or establishment of material against the dealer with some semblance of reasonableness. 13. We take note of the above argument, and by looking at the order of the penalty, we are persuaded to hold that the Intelligence officer would have done better from the perspective of law and procedure; fairness in action was followed while accepting the material on which penalty proceedings are initiated. Explained further in the case on hand, in the beginning and ending of penalty, is with reference to Mr.K. Ravindran. It cannot completely be said that the Intelligence officer is relying on the books of account alone. It is again a matter of choice and selection, as the context compelled the Intelligence Officer to choose. The penalty is a matter of serious consequence and visits further reopening of assessment etc of the Assessee, for the years for which assessments have been are already complete. The statement or the material, if relied on for any limited purpose in the ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the same is after affording the dealer an opportunity of the crossexamination of Mr.K.Ravindran or we hasten to add the revenue has liberty to use the material available and the intrinsic evidence that could be culled out to proceed against the Dealer. We keep in perspective the dictum of the Full Bench and the case on hand falls within the ambit of the circumstance of the case laid down in MT Thomas case. Hence the present circumstances warrant us to hold the order in Annexure-D as confirmed by the order in Annexure-H order dated 31.07.2015 is illegal and results in a prejudice to the dealer. Hence warrants interference of this Court. 14. The reasoning given by the Tribunal does not address the real issue of element of prejudice the dealer suffers with manner. the acceptance of material/statement in an _ipse dixit_ We are not convinced with the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal. We appreciate the objection raised by Mr. ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Muhammed Raffiq that the Appellate Authority, if had a reason to hold in the case on hand that the denial of the right of cross-examination resulted in prejudice to the dealer, the Appellate Authority ought to have remitted the matter to the Intelligence Officer for disposal afresh. Therefore, allowing the appeal in its entirety on merits, in our view by the Appellate Authority is equally unsustainable and illegal. For the above reasons, and consideration of the totality of circumstances the S.T.Revision/Appeals are allowed as indicated below: a) The orders in Annexures-D, E and H are set aside. b) The matter remitted to the Intelligence Officer for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with law. c) The Revenue is given liberty to serve additional reassessment notice if so advised by referring to the statement/material recovered on 13.09.2010. d) Intelligence Officer completes the re-assessment within ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** four months from the date of receipt of this judgment, passes order. e) The dealer is given opportunity to file an additional reply within two weeks from the date of service of fresh additional re-assessment notice from the Intelligence Officer. f) The Revenue chooses to introduce Mr. Ravindran or any other material in this behalf, the dealer is afforded an opportunity to cross-examine or rebut the additional material if any brought on record. S.T.Revion Nos.12/2016, 14/2016, 15/2016, 16/2016 & OT.Appeal Nos.13/2017, 14/2017, 15/2017, 16/2017 For the view taken in S.T.Rev. No.13 of 2016, the orders of Intelligence Officer, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal/Commissioner of State Goods and Service ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -36- Taxes in these Revisions/Appeals are set aside. Matters remitted to the Intelligence Officer for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. **Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE** **Sd/-** **BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** JS -37- ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 13/2016** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** - ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR A.Y. 2000-2001 DATED 12.03.2012 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY - ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. - ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 20002001 DATED 10.03.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM DATED 15.10.2014 - ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN - ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN - ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 31.07.2015 IN TA 35/15 - ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2016 SERVED ON THE PETITONER ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -38- ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 12/2016** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR A.Y. 2002-2003 DATED 12.03.2012 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. - ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 20022003 DATED 10.03.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM DATED 15.10.2014 - ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN - ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN - ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 31.07.2015 IN TA 37/15 - ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2016 SERVED ON THE PETITONER -39- ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 14/2016** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR A.Y. 2003-2004 DATED 12.03.2012 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. - ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 20032004 DATED 10.03.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM DATED 15.10.2014 - ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN - ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN - ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 31.07.2015 IN TA 38/15 ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2016 SERVED ON THE PETITONER -40- ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 15/2016** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR A.Y. 2001-2002 DATED 12.03.2012 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. - ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 20012002 DATED 10.03.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM DATED 15.10.2014 - ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN - ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN - ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 31.07.2015 IN TA 36/15 ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2016 SERVED ON THE PETITONER ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -41- ## **APPENDIX OF ST.REV. 16/2016** ## **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF A.Y.20042005 DATED 12.03.2012 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.03.2014 FOR A.Y.20042005 DATED 10.03.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM DATED 15.10.2014 ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 31.07.2015 IN TA 39/15 ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2016 SERVED ON THE PETITONER ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -42- ## **APPENDIX OF O.T.A 13/2017** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSSING PENALTY UNDER SEC.67 DATED 10.03.2014 OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III THRISSUR FOR A.Y 2005-06 ANNEUXRE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2014 FOR A.Y 2005-06 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.58 OF THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2016 IN ONE OF THE OTHER TAX APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ANNEUXRE G CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2017 INITIATED U/S.58 BY THE RESPONDENT. ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -43- ## **APPENDIX OF O.T.A 14/2017** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSSING PENALTY UNDER SEC.67 DATED 10.03.2014 OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III THRISSUR FOR A.Y 2006-07 ANNEUXRE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2014 FOR A.Y 2006-07 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.58 OF THE RESPONDENT - ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT - ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT - ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2016 IN ONE OF THE OTHER TAX APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT - ANNEUXRE G CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2017 INITIATED U/S.58 BY THE RESPONDENT. - ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 31.07.2015 IN TA 39/15 - ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2016 SERVED ON THE PETITONER ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -44- ## **APPENDIX OF O.T.A 15/2017** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSSING PENALTY UNDER SEC.67 DATED 10.03.2014 OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III THRISSUR FOR A.Y 2007-08 ANNEUXRE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2014 FOR A.Y 2007-08 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.58 OF THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2016 IN ONE OF THE OTHER TAX APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ANNEUXRE G CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2017 INITIATED U/S.58 BY THE RESPONDENT. ST.REV NO.13 OF 2016 & CON. CASES -45- ## **APPENDIX OF O.T.A 16/2017** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** ANNEXURE A ANNEUXRE B ANNEXURE C ANNEXURE D ANNEXURE E ANNEXURE F ANNEUXRE G TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSSING PENALTY UNDER SEC.67 DATED 10.03.2014 OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III THRISSUR FOR A.Y 2008-09 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2014 FOR A.Y 2008-09 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.58 OF THE RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2016 IN ONE OF THE OTHER TAX APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2017 INITIATED U/S.58 BY THE RESPONDENT.