Southern Ispat and Energy Ltd. v. State of Kerala (O.T. Rev Nos. 41/2015 & 42/2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944 ## OT.REV NO. 41 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 54/2013 OF VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PKD REVISION PETITIONER/S: SOUTHERN ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD., 19/629(1) SREYAS, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.); SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE ## RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. ## OTHER PRESENT: GP M.M. JASMIN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.42/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-2-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944 OT.REV NO. 42 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER TAVAT 60/2013 OF VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PKD REVISION PETITIONER/S: SOUTHERN ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD. 19/629(1)SREYAS, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY; SRI.ANIL GEORGE ## RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER REPRESENTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GP M.M.JASMIN THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2023, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.41/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-3-** ## O R D E R [O.T.Rev Nos.41/2015, 42/2015] S.V. Bhatti, J. Southern Ispat and Energy Limited, represented by its Managing Director/a dealer registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 (for short, the Act), is the petitioner in the captioned O.T Revisions. The State of Kerala, represented by its Intelligence Officer, Squad No.1, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam/Revenue, is the respondent. The revisions arise from the common order dated 02.09.2014 in TA(VAT) Nos.54/2013 and 60/2013 on the Kerala Value Added Tax Additional Appellate Tribunal’s file, Palakkad (for short, the Tribunal). 2. The Intelligence Officer, Squad No.1 Ernakulam, passed orders under section 67(1) of the Act for 2005-06 and **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-4-** 2006-07. O.T. Rev. No.41/2015 relates to the return period of 2005-06, and O.T. Rev. No.42/2015 relates to the return period of 2006-07. The circumstances preceding the initiation of penalty proceedings are stated very briefly before taking up the consequences of such proceedings. 3. On 15.11.2006, Intelligence Officer Ernakulam searched the dealer's office, factory premises, and the residence of the Managing and Executive Director of the dealer/company. The dealer is a medium-scale industry doing business in manufacturing and selling mild steel ingots. The search resulted in the seizure of documents from the dealer leading to the enquiry under section 67(1) of the Act. The Intelligence Officer for the return period 2005-06 levied a penalty of Rs.1,68,42,470/- and for the return period of 2006-07, Rs.1,65,53,600/-. The dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Authority modified the **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-5-** order of penalty, i.e., set aside the suppressed turnover arrived at by the Intelligence Officer and remitted the matter to the Intelligence Office to carry out a test/trial run of the dealer’s unit. And on the outcome of such test result determine the suppressed turnover attracting the penalty under Section 67(1) of the Act. 4. The dealer contested the order of penalty dated 09.04.2008 as barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority did not accept the said contention. Yet another ground on which the penalty was determined was a foreign exchange transaction on which the Intelligence Officer discerned suppression of turnover. The Appellate Authority upheld the consideration and inclusion of foreign exchange transactions. The said finding was confirmed by the Tribunal as well. 5. For the return period 2006-07, three questions were canvassed before the 1[st] Appellate Authority, and they are **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-6-** ## (i) limitation, (ii) estimation of suppressed turnover by conducting a trial run of the dealer’s factory, and (iii) addition of Rs.1,31,51,218/-, Rs.2,00,75,642/and consideration of the unaccounted purchase of raw material, production, and sales amounts to Rs.9,57,08,830/-. The common grounds of challenge to the order of the Intelligence Officer related to limitation and estimation of turnover by conducting the trial run of the dealer’s factory. The additional grounds in O.T. Rev.41/2015 are for transactions implying foreign exchange calculation, and in O.T. Rev. No.42/2015, the consideration, inclusion of suppressed turnover etc. Therefore, we find it convenient to take up the common grounds of challenge, namely limitation and estimation, in both the O T Revisions and later examine the distinct grounds of challenge in these two revisions. **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-7-** ## Limitation 6. The proviso to Section 67 of the Act reads as follows: “Provided that the authority empowered under this Section shall dispose of the case within one year from the date of detection of offence mentioned under this Section except where the extension of time is granted by the Deputy Commissioner.” 6.1 In the above statutory prescription or completion of penalty proceedings within one year, the argument proceeds by referring to the inspection and mahazar dated 15.11.2006, followed by notice dated 28.06.2007 and penalty order dated 09.04.2008. The dealer contends that the penalty order is beyond the one-year prescribed by the proviso of Section 67. Therefore, the penalties imposed through orders in Annexure A are beyond the limitation period. The contention that the order of penalty is beyond the period of limitation is rejected by the **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-8-** 1[st] Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. Juxtaposing the circumstances of the case to the objection raised by the dealer, the 1[st] Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have recorded findings of fact, and they do not come within the scope of Section 63 of the Act warranting our interference. Apart from the above reason, this Court, in judgments dated 18.02.2009 and 26.10.2018 in W.A. No.385/2009 and W.A. No.344/2017, respectively, held as follows. “W.A. No.344/2017 9. Obviously here, the notice was first issued long after the defalcation alleged by the DRI, was brought to the notice of the CTD. But the proceedings initiated by the DRI was pending and the CTD waited for the final result. If the notice has been delayed, as in the present case, where the proceedings were initiated by the DRI in 2006 and the same was concluded only in the year 2011 after which the CTD took out proceedings under Section 45A of the KGST Act and Section 67 of the KVAT Act, then necessarily it would have to be decided as to whether the offence alleged by the CTD was one dependent only on the proceedings initiated by the DRI or also on the order of the **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-9-** Commissioner of Customs. This essentially is a factual adjudication, which we would not enter into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the offence detected by the CTD, as evident from the notice issued, is one which is relatable to and dependent on the order of the Commissioner of Customs, then we have to say that there is no question of limitation arising, since the proceedings were completed within three years from the date of the order of the Commissioner of Customs itself, the notice having been issued in the year 2012, which is for reason of the receipt of the order of 2011, being in 2012.” 6.2 The ratio is that the occasion to proceed for levying the penalty arises on verification and comparison of accounts whether suppression is made out or not could be arrived at. Then the proceeding for penalty is initiated. Therefore, the reckoning of the period in an abstract manner fixing the outer limit as one year is incorrect and illegal. The initiation of penalty depends on alleged suppression of sales, purchase of raw materials. Before ascertainment of omissions, it cannot be **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-10-** said that the one-year period starts against the Department. We follow the ratio of this Court in W.A. No 344/2017 and hold the limitation against the dealer and in favour of the Department. ## Suppressed production calculated by the Intelligence Officer 7. The Intelligence Officer estimated and arrived at 10016.375 MT as the unaccounted production for 2005-06 and 5855.058 MT for 2006-07. The details and basis of the above conclusion are stated in sufficient detail in the orders under review. The Intelligence Officer referred to the project report of KSIDC Ltd as the benchmark for arriving at the figures noted above as suppression of sales. The Appellate Authority found fault with such an approach and set aside the finding of the Intelligence Officer on suppression of production and sales. However, remitted the matter to the Intelligence Officer for conducting a trial run of the unit and determining the actual **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-11-** production capacity of the unit of the dealer. Upon such determination, the actual suppressed turnover is arrived at, and a penalty is imposed. The dealer aggrieved by the remand filed Tax Appeals before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal confirmed the remand order of the Appellate Authority. The dealer, aggrieved by the view of the Tribunal and the 1[st] Appellate Authority, challenges the findings as entirely illegal and unavailable under Section 67 of the Act. 8. It is not disputed that the trial run was not taken up during the pendency of the first appeal or before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel for the dealer informs us that the dealer’s factory has been out of operation for nearly ten years and presently is not operative, thereby suggesting that the conduct of a trial run for determining the capacity of the unit of the dealer is impossible. Alternatively, it is argued that the _ratio decidendi_ or principle could be adopted from the decision of _U K_ **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** _Monu Timbers v. State of Kerala_[1] and _Scot-Free Steels v. The_ . _Intelligence Officer, CTD, Kottayam_[2] 9. Senior Counsel Mr Markos argues that the direction to undertake a trial run or test run is again a limb of estimation. The suppression of turnover can never be exclusively appreciated from a trial or test run. The fact that the unit was operated at its full capacity is no reason to support a conclusion of the difference of turnover, i.e., notionally arrived at on comparison with the test result and the sales return by the dealer. The capacity of a unit is one thing, and production at full capacity is another. The material for arriving at the alleged suppression of production and sale is not the estimation of the capacity of the dealer’s unit to manufacture steel ingots. He relies on the following paragraphs: > 1 2012 (3) KHC 111 (DB) 2 (2015) 23 KTR 235 (Ker.) **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-13-** ## “ _U K Monu Timbers_ 9. In penalty proceedings the offences indicated under Section 67 should be evidenced by the materials recovered on inspection or otherwise and the enquiry is pointedly against any actual suppression or omission in the course of the business transactions, which would lead to the definite conclusion of evasion or attempt to evade. On detection of such offences; in the event of the tax evaded or sought to be evaded being determinable, the officer initiating penalty proceedings is perfectly justified in imposing penalty at the maximum rate of twice the rate of tax actually evaded or sought to be evaded. Such officer conducting penalty proceedings cannot exceed his jurisdiction by finding out as to whether the evasion detected would in fact lead to an inference of earlier or subsequent evasion. Nor can such inferences regarding the earlier or subsequent conduct be reflected in the penalty proceedings by way of estimation of turnover based on such inferences. This, going by the clear words employed in the statute, is within the realm of the assessment proceeding. *** *** *** 11. Section 67 does not confer power to make a reasonable estimate. The suppression or omission must be clearly disclosed from the materials available and there should be evidence of the amounts sought to be suppressed from the turnover. In **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-14-** cases where the same is not discernible, the only option is to make an order of imposition of fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-. Any suppression detected or rather any file generated on a crime so detected and penalised necessarily gives the assessing authority the power to make estimations to compensate the State against probable omissions and suppressions. Such exercise, as is mandated by the statute, has to be regulated by the best judgment of the individual officer which definitely is subject to the principles of reasonableness, proportionality and of course natural justice. Such estimation on best judgment would definitely have to be done with due notice and after affording a personal hearing. Such estimation should be reasonable and should have a nexus with the gravity and frequency of the commission of offences as also the quantum of loss suffered by the State. This exercise, in our opinion, cannot be undertaken by the officer empowered with the power to impose penalty under Section 67 of the Act. Section 67 contemplates imposition of penalty on proof of commission of offences as a measure of deterrence, best judgment assessments are made to compensate the loss caused to the State. The first question hence is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. *** *** *** 18. …….. Apart from the fact that no such record or publication **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-15-** has been subjected to scrutiny in the instant case, it is also pertinent that there is nothing in the statute to enable adoption of such published rates as the actual price on which tax is to be paid. The above provisions would indicate that the legislature thought it fit to levy tax on the actual price received by the seller on the sale of goods at the seller's hands. The circular of the Commissioner cannot and does not decide the value on which the tax is to be imposed. Circulars issued under the powers of superintendence or for proper administration of the Act or to prevent evasion cannot at all be law. Evidently, as is discernible from the specific words employed in Section 47(16A) as also the object disclosed from the words employed in the circular, the value fixed by the circular only indicates the tax to be paid in advance at the time of entry into the State for the purposes of sale within the State; as a measure to prevent evasion of tax with respect of named commodities. *** *** *** 21. …… The assessing officer, definitely on an independent consideration of the materials recovered by the Intelligence Officer, may be entitled to go in for a 'best judgment assessment', if the sale consideration disclosed in the books of accounts are found to be ostensible. However, as noticed by the Division Bench in KMP Timbers & Saw Mills case MANU/KE/2729/2010: (2012) 50 VST 19 (Ker), the same would **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** ## **-16-** be possible only in assessment proceedings and that too on the basis of materials evidencing such practice of under-valuation and consequent suppression of turnover. As noticed above, the Intelligence Officer cannot apply his judgment at the reasonable best for inferring suppression and thereby estimating turnover, for the simple reason that such power has not been conferred by Section 67 of the KVAT Act. ## _- Scot Free Steels Ltd_ 7. Inasmuch as in the instant case, the Intelligence Officers have chosen to impose penalties on the petitioners, based on the figures arrived at by them consequent to an estimation of the alleged suppressed turnover, am of the view that the orders impugned in these writ petitions namely, Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 Demand notice in W.P.(C) No.16630/2009, Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.16652/2009, Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.16656/2009, Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.16657/2009, Exts. P5 and P5(a) in W.P.(C)No.17519/2009, Exts.P16 and P17 in W.P.(C) No.32034/2010 and Exts.P16 and P17 in W.P.(C) No.32543/2010 are liable to be quashed, and I do so. The Intelligence Officers shall proceed to pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, and after considering the materials that were collected at the time of inspection of the business premises of the petitioners and without resorting to any estimation of turnover. It will be open **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** ## **-17-** to the petitioners to file such objections, as they may deem necessary, against the proposals contained in the notices issued to them under Section 67 of the KVAT Act and, thereafter, the Intelligence Officers shall pass orders in the matters as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Therefore, the argument is that a trial run without reference to any material seized or analysed on reconciliation of books of accounts is nothing short of estimation and needs to be set aside. 10. Government Pleader Jasmin argues that the findings recorded by the Intelligence Officer are clear that the dealer is resorting to the systematic suppression of production and sales, and the available method is to go for a test or trial run in its full capacity and arrive at the actual output by juxtaposing with the energy consumed by the dealer. Government Pleader does not gainsay that the decisions relied on by the dealer are on the **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-18-** point of difference in jurisdiction between Section 25 of the Act, where the best judgment is available and Section 67 of the Act, which deals with penalty for suppressed sale or production. 11. The principle laid down by this Court in _U K Monu Timbers_ and _Scot-Free Steels Ltd_ holds the field as of date. The paragraphs relied on by the dealer in categorical terms lay down the jurisdictional difference in best judgment and penalty proceedings. Keeping the said difference in mind, let us now advert to the consequence of the direction of the 1[st] Appellate Authority and the Tribunal to conduct trial production by the dealer. The trial run, if performed, places in the hands of the Intelligence Officer the functional capacity of the subject factory. The said result is used as a parameter for estimation without material but suppressed production or suppressed sale is arrived at. _U K Monu Timbers’_ case dealt with guesswork and estimation in penalty proceedings. Therefore, the direction to **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-19-** conduct trial production is only a first step of estimation and is impermissible under Section 67 of the Act. Consequently, to call upon the dealer to undertake a trial run is not an available option in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the reasons that the unit has been closed for the past several years and the estimation of the data of trial production are justifiable reasons for interfering with the view of the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority for trial production are set aside. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue in both the O T Revisions. O.T. Rev 41/2015 12. The Intelligence Officer referring to business slips 30 numbers seized from the dealer, noted suppression of production of goods from import of raw material. The Intelligence Officer on this aspect of the matter recorded the **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-20-** ## following findings: “Regarding defects noted in Recovery 6 i.e., business slips 30 Nos., the company has put forth lengthy descriptions regarding the procedure of import. But the only issue involved in the instant case is the non accounting of the imported material. Verification of the recovered slips disclosed a clear picture of modus operandi practiced by the company. As per slips 1, 2 and 20 the dealer imports scrap from Gulf Countries @ 40 dollars towards the accounted quantity and at 250 dollars for excess quantity of scrap received along with accounted quantity, which does not find in the bill of entry or bill of lading. The scribbling made in the slips clearly indicates the excess quantity received under the caption “w/o” which means without. The Company could not produce any supporting evidence to prove to the contrary. Hence it is proved beyond doubt that the Company has suppressed the import of scrap and there by suppressed production as well as sales. It is pertinent to note that the company has evaded KVAT due to the Government exchequer as well as Customs Duty and Central Excise duty. With regard to the import of unaccounted raw materials effected as per the remaining slips the company could not explain them with conclusive evidences. Mere statements like "only scribbling made by staff", "calculation of commission" **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** ## **-21-** etc., without corroborative evidence would not come to the rescue of the company. The above transactions are purely unaccounted ingots made by the Company. Hence the contentions are overruled.” The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal confirmed the finding. 13. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the reasoning of the Intelligence Officer suffers from intrinsic fallacy, namely, quantities arrived at etc., on the import of raw materials are unsustainable. The grievance against the Tribunal’s order is that the Tribunal has not considered the grounds raised by the dealer. Therefore, the findings to include Rs.30,73,989/- in the penalty order are set aside, and the matter is remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration. 14. Government Pleader contends that the grounds raised in this Court against the subject findings are not within the scope of Section 63 of the Act. The argument is principally **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-22-** on the basis that the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant reconsideration or interference of this Court. Therefore, she prays to reject the said argument. 15. The issues centre around the grounds canvassed against the finding recorded for including Rs.30,73,989/- in the suppressed turnover or not. To appreciate the finding recorded by the primary authority, we have excerpted the operative portion in the preceding paragraphs. The 1st Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have considered the issue within the competence of their jurisdiction. The findings are confirmed. These findings of fact do not call for interference. As confirmed by the 1st Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, the Intelligence Officer's findings are not interfered with by this order. ## Suppressed production calculated by the Intelligence Officer 16. The questions of law raised in OT Rev 42/2015 read **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-23-** ## thus: “(vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming penalty attributable to addition of Rs.1,31,51,218/- and whether there is any evidence or material on record to justify the finding that the said penalty has been correctly imposed? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming penalty attributable to addition of Rs.2,00,75,642/- and whether there is any evidence or material on record to justify the finding that the said penalty has been correctly imposed? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal erred in failing to decide the grounds or enter a finding with respect to penalty imposed and attributable to alleged suppression said to be detected out of unaccounted purchase of raw-materials, production and sales amounting to Rs.9,57,08,830/-.” 17. Senior Counsel appearing for the dealer argues that the figures arrived at by the Intelligence Officer are not supported by the material at the hands of the Intelligence Officer. The 1[st] Appellate Authority, in a mechanical way, **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-24-** confirmed the view of the Intelligence Officer and the Tribunal, despite the specific grounds raised in the appeal, and did not record any of the findings. The material is placed before this Court to support the argument that unavailable and artificial figures are relied on to conclude alleged suppression of production, sales etc. Therefore, prayed to set aside the findings. 18. Government Pleader Ms Jasmin, replying to the argument, contends that this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act, ought not to sit as a court of appeal and reconcile the material now placed before this Court to review the finding recorded by the Tribunal, Appellate Authority and the Intelligence Officer. Such exercise, by a preponderance of judicial review, is avoided by this Court. Firstly, she argues that the findings do not warrant interference, and secondly, that if the alternative argument is **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** appealing to this Court, then the matter should be directed to be reexamined by the Intelligence Officer. 19. The arguments formulate a question: Are the findings on these grounds tenable or need to be reconsidered by the Intelligence Officer? After perusing the order of the Tribunal, we are convinced to record that the Tribunal did not advert to this head of inclusion by the Intelligence Officer. This Court does not simultaneously take up the function of the 1[st] Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. In the fitness of circumstances present in the case on hand, we prefer to go with the alternative argument of the Government Pleader that the Intelligence Officer ought to be directed to reexamine the suppression of turnover covered by the grounds excerpted above. 20. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Intelligence Officer on suppressed production, turnover/sales covered by **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-26-** these grounds are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Intelligence Officer for consideration of this issue arising in the period of return 2006-07. ## Summary OT Rev 41/2015 is allowed in part. OT Rev 42/2015 is allowed partly, and the matter is remitted to the Intelligence Officer for consideration of the issue referred to in the preceding paragraphs. Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-27-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 42/2015 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO LEVY AN EXORBITANT PENALTY OF RS. 1,65,63,600/- ON AN ASSUMED SUPPRESSED TURNOVER OF RS. 20,69,20,500/- ANNEXURE B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 20.11.2010 **O.T.(Rev.) Nos. 41 & 42/2015** **-28-** ## APPENDIX OF OT.REV 41/2015 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO LEVY AN EXORBITANT PENALTY OF RS. 1,68,42,470/- ON AN ASSUMED SUPPRESSED TURNOVER OF RS. 21,05,30,909/- ANNEXURE B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 20.11.2010