K.P.BALANARAYANA MARAR, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
P. D. SUDHI – Appellant
Versus
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX, MATTANCHERRY – Respondent
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - Common questions arise for consideration in this batch of cases. The important aspect canvassed in this batch of cases is that section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, (in short, "the Ac") is unconstitutional and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. In O.P. Nos. 7361 of 1990 and 6316 of 1990 a subsidiary point is also raised to the effect that the authorities have levied the maximum penalty arbitrarily and in a mechanical manner, and have totally failed to act judicially.
2. Writ Appeal No. 108 of 1990 is preferred against the judgment in O.P. No. 351 of 1990, dated January 15, 1990. The petitioner in the O.P. (O.P. No. 351 of 1990), appellant in the writ appeal, is a firm. According to it, it is keeping true and complete accounts of its business transactions. A search was made of the business premises of the firm on March 8, 1988. Exhibit P1 records were seized. By exhibit P2 dated September 29, 1989, the appellant was directed to produce the accounts for the year 1987-88 for verification, falling which, penalty under section 45A(1)(e) of the Act was threatened. The appellant filed his reply, exhibit P3, dated October
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.