Judgment :- V.V. Kamat, J. The penalty proceedings before the Intelligence Officer (Ext. P1) whereby under S.45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, penalty of Rs. 77,222/- was imposed as double the amount of tax evaded by the dealer, was challenged initially before the first revisional authority (Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Kannur) to confirm the said imposition, considering the suppression of turnover unearthed and further confirmed by the second revisional authority [the Board of Revenue (Taxes), Trivandrum] is brought before us by this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for a further probe within the limits of jurisdiction. 2. Certain facts need preliminary narration. The place of business of the petitioner, being M/s. R.P. Govindan Sons, Thalassery, was inspected by the Intelligence Squad, Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Kannur, on June 2,1992. In the process a bill book bearing Nos. 14401 up to 15,000 was seized having been found to have been used up to receipt No. 14748. The book of accounts were called for and also verified and in the process tax evasion with regard to (a) high speed diesel, and (b) motor spirit was found. This was for the period of 24 days covered by the bills referred to above, numbering about 350. 3. A show cause notice and all the necessary statutory particulars were followed and the trial authority by the order Ext. P1 came to the factual conclusion that the shortage noticed in the inspection cannot be said to be due to omission to issue sale bills, but to cover up the unaccounted arrival of high speed diesel and petrol from his Mahe concern and this unaccounted sale would have to be considered in this perspective. It was also in regard to the situation, safely concluded that the dealer has been selling high-speed diesel and petrol by issuing bills that the dealer has been selling from the bill book, which was not intended to account. On facts, in exercise of powers under S.45A of the Act a penalty, double the amount of the tax evaded, of Rs. 77,222/- was imposed. 4.The first revisional authority also considered the factual matrix to observe that the shortage of the stock revealed that 3,140 litres of high-speed diesel and 2,386 litres of motor spirit was detected. It also observed that the bill book bearing Nos. 77,222/- was imposed. 4.The first revisional authority also considered the factual matrix to observe that the shortage of the stock revealed that 3,140 litres of high-speed diesel and 2,386 litres of motor spirit was detected. It also observed that the bill book bearing Nos. 14401 up to 15,000 showing that it was used up to bill No. 14748 was also recovered from the place of business showing the sale of these commodities by the use of the above bills. It is also emphasised that the sales effected by these bills have not been accounted for in the daybook and the stock register. The total tax evasion as evidenced was fixed at Rs. 38,611/-. 5. It was urged that the approach of the authority in penalty matters is the approach requiring the standard of proof relating to the proceedings of quasi-criminal character. It was also submitted that the imposition of maximum penalty in the absence of satisfactory grounds in support thereof would not be sustainable. Decisions were placed in support of the above propositions. 6. The first revisional authority has seen that the stock difference has been actually found out on analysis of the stock recorded at the time of inspection with the petitioner's accounts. It is further found that unaccounted sale was also noticed on scrutiny of the bill book. Not only that, an offence of failure of keeping true and satisfactory accounts is established, the quantum of penalty was also found to be in order considering the suppression of the turnover unearthed. Thus, the order was confirmed by the first revisional authority. 7. It was urged by way of a second revision before the Board of Revenue that generally 50 per cent of the penalty or tax amount disputed is stayed and on the basis of this normal practice, it was also submitted that a conditional order of stay on deposit of cash of Rs. 40,000 which was also excessive was ordered by the first revisional authority. It was also urged that there is no justification in treating excess and shortage and resort to imposition of hefty penalty on speculations. The basic approach in penalty proceedings which are in the nature of quasi-criminal character was also reiterated. 8. The Board of Revenue by its impugned order (Ext. P4) considered the entire position. It was also urged that there is no justification in treating excess and shortage and resort to imposition of hefty penalty on speculations. The basic approach in penalty proceedings which are in the nature of quasi-criminal character was also reiterated. 8. The Board of Revenue by its impugned order (Ext. P4) considered the entire position. It is observed that the fact that the bills were recovered from the business place of the petitioner showing that the sale bills do not find a place in the books of accounts afford a prima facie basis requiring the petitioner to prove that "even in the absence of proper accounts, the sales were not of tax suffered. The Board of Revenue considered the statutory provision also referring Entry No. 97, First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, applicable to the situation and the assessment year in question to the effect that the commodities are taxable at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to pay tax under S.5 when the sale is not by an oil company. 9. The Board of Revenue also observed with reference to the position of law in regard thereto to observe that the Court's approach to tax avoidance, when the petitioner is shown to have been practising large scale evasion, will have to be understood not to have acted bona fide in respect of the shortage in stock. It is further observed that unaccounted arrivals and sales is a regular phenomenon and only a small portion could be found on actual physical verification of stock. It is emphasised that it is a well-known fact that the stock destined for Mahe, nearer to Thalassery, are available for diversion to Kerala because of the tax difference. The Board of Revenue has recorded its experience to state that many cases have been detected by various departments and even there are prosecutions under the Essential Commodities Act. It is observed that from the conduct of the petitioner for the period just prior to inspection speaks volumes for unaccounted arrivals. 10. as regards the quantum of penalty it is observed that the conduct of the petitioner is contumacious in nature and the irregularities detected are of a continuous character exhibiting the modus operandi adopted as seen from the nature of the transactions covering a short period of 24 days. 10. as regards the quantum of penalty it is observed that the conduct of the petitioner is contumacious in nature and the irregularities detected are of a continuous character exhibiting the modus operandi adopted as seen from the nature of the transactions covering a short period of 24 days. The Board of Revenue did not find any reason for interference with regard to the imposition of maximum penalty. 11. the learned counsel was in difficulty on merits. It was not possible to challenge surprise inspection dated June 2, 1992 and the seizure of the physical stock. It was further more difficult to give any dent to the receipt book and the contents of nearly 350 bills not reflecting in the books of accounts and the daybook. In short, with regard to the amount of Rs. 38,611 as tax evasion, apart from the scope of the present petition, even on merits the situation was beyond challenge in regard thereto. 12. The learned counsel made submissions with regard to the approach of the taxing authorities in regard to proceedings under S.45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He urged that the approach has to be the approach of the authority dealing with proceedings of quasi-criminal character. The learned counsel also submitted that under S.45A normally a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is levied and double the amount of tax evasion is a rare occasion. None can even think of disputing the general nature of the submissions. Even the counsel, when confronted with the provision that in a situation of tax evasion, double the amount of penalty in relation to the amount of tax evaded is the maximum in relation to a situation of tax evasion. 13. The learned counsel strenuously submitted that the facts and circumstances would not justify imposition of maximum penalty, being double the amount of tax evaded. 14. In considering this submission in the first instance, we have to take in to account that the two revisional statutory authorities have considered the question with regard to the quantum. With regard to this question, relating to the determination of quantum of penalty, the present petition would be one under the guise of a third revision, limiting our powers narrower still. 15. With regard to this question, relating to the determination of quantum of penalty, the present petition would be one under the guise of a third revision, limiting our powers narrower still. 15. even apart from that there are certain features that float on the surface of the record even if we assume that we can consider the question of penalty ourselves independently. 16. it was a surprise inspection and in the process transactions of 24 days came to light. It covered nearly 350 receipts not having been accounted for either in the daybook or in the stock register. The period found as a result of accidental detection is of 24 days, which is a healthy basis for imagining what must have happened in the past, immediate or remote. If during the period of 24 days the amount to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-approximately can be evaded, the enormity can be left to reasonable imagination in regard thereto. Even the process revealed omission to issue sale bills to cover up the unaccounted arrival of high-speed diesel and petrol from the Mane concern. In regard thereto it has already been observed that it is an open secret and a well-known fact that the concerned stock destined for Mahe which is nearer to Thalassery are made available for diversion to the State of Kerala and this is because of the tax difference. It is also observed that the tax difference is 15 percent and therefore the profit as a result of this clandestine affair is not difficult to imagine. Therefore, for the above reasons, even acting independently of ourselves, it is not possible to deal with the question of quantum in any other way than dealt with by the authorities below. The petition stands dismissed.