Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioner is a dealer under the KVAT Act. There was an inspection in his premises on 13.1.2006. This led to levy of penalty of `5,17,970/- on the ground of non-maintenance of books of accounts and on the basis of the quantum of sales revealed from the seized records. That was set aside in appeal and the matter was remitted with a direction that the petitioner shall produce books of accounts and supporting documents before the Intelligence Officer within two weeks of receipt of Annexure A2 order.
2. The matter was re-considered by the Intelligence Officer and Annexure A3 order was passed. It is revealed from this order that the Intelligence Officer had issued summons calling upon the petitioner on various occasions to produce books of accounts. Despite the receipt of summons, petitioner did not turn up or produce the documents. He was again issued notice informing that in the OTR.201/14 2 circumstances, original order of penalty was proposed to be restored. This notice also was not responded.
3. In such circumstances, by Annexure A3 order, penalty as originally levied was restored. petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which also was dismissed by Annexure A4 order. The second appeal filed before the Tribunal, a copy of which is Annexure A5, was also dismissed by Annexure A6 order. It is aggrieved by these proceedings, the revision is filed.
4. As we have already seen, the proceedings originated on an inspection of the petitioner's premises on 13.1.2006. On the basis of the documents seized, the quantum of sales was found to `20,17,973/-. It was on that basis, the penalty in question was levied. The first appellate authority remitted the matter with a direction to the petitioner to produce the books of accounts. Despite various opportunities given by the Intelligence Officer, the petitioner did not produce the documents. Even before the second OTR.201/14 3 appellate authority, the petitioner did not make any endeavour to produce the documents. Moreover, the Tribunal's order shows that even when the matter was argued before it, the petitioner did not have a case that they have maintained books of accounts. The petitioner did not have any explanation for the non- production of the books of accounts. It was in such circumstances that the penalty was restored and the same was confirmed concurrently by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal.
We do not find any error in the impugned order.
Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.