(1.) O.T.Rev.No.84 of 2017 arises from an order of the Tribunal which set aside the penalty imposed by the Intelligence Wing pursuant to an interception of a vehicle. O.T.Rev.Nos.91 of 2017 and 89 of 2017 arise from the consequent assessment made on the strength of the Crime File leading to penalty. The assessing authority made an addition of the actual suppression along with addition at two times for probable omissions and suppressions. The first appellate authority found that, the suppressed turnover found has been shown in the accounts and hence the same was deleted. The two further equal additions made were sustained. The Tribunal set aside the entire additions.
(2.) The question of law arising in all these interconnected revisions is one and the same, which we re-frame as follows:
(3.) The goods transported was live chicken. The dealer was in Pattambi and the interception was made between Palakkad and Pattambi on 01.07.2014 at Pathirippala. The goods were accompanied with sale invoices issued by the dealer at Pattambi to purchasers in Malappuram. The goods, as per the sale invoices, were to be transported from Pattambi to Malappuram and there was no reason why the vehicle was at Pathirippala, which is between Palakkad and Pattambi. The Intelligence Officer took proceedings and in the adjudication, at the time of hearing, the dealer produced purchase invoices of the dealer from a seller in Govindapuram. In fact, the statement at the time of interception was that the goods were loaded from Kozhinjampara. The Intelligence Officer also found that if the goods were purchased from Govindapuram and transported to Pattambi, again there was no reason why it should pass through Pathirippala, the place of interception. Penalty was imposed at the maximum of two times the suppression detected. The assessment was taken up, in which the actual turnover suppression was tacked on to the turnover along with two further additions for probable omissions and suppressions.