JUDGMENT P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. – The petitioner has approached this court challenging the penalty imposed as per exhibit P3 order, passed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 which in turn has been upheld and affirmed by the second respondent in first revision vide exhibit P4 revision and by the first respondent, in the second revision, vide exhibit P5. The crux of the contentions taken by the petitioner is that, there is absolutely no justification for the finding arrived at by the Departmental authorities, while imposing the penalty on the petitioner, especially in view of the fact that, the petitioner/consignor/seller was not in a position to ascertain the deeds and misdeeds of the consignee/buyer situated outside the State. It is contended that, when the goods sold by the petitioner had admittedly crossed the border (inter-State sale) and when the petitioner, who originally remitted the tax at four per cent also cleared the differential tax as well (when the Departmental authorities arrived at a finding that the C forms submitted by the petitioner, procured from the consignee, were not genuine), there is absolutely no foundation for having imposed the punishment. The sequence of events is as follows : The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of importing and selling toiletries and fancy items, had imported some goods through the Cochin Port and they were sent to the consignee, namely, M/s. Sree Mukambika Trades and Agencies, Mangalore. The said "inter-State sale" was to the tune of Rs. 39,84,469 and the goods were supported with all the necessary documents including the import details. The lorry containing the goods had crossed the State, and obtained necessary endorsement on the documents from the check-post at Mangalore, which conclusively proved that the goods were never sold within the State. Subsequently, based on the return submitted by the petitioner, a letter was written by the Departmental authorities to the consignee in Mangalore, which however was returned stating that, there was no such consignee. In the said circumstances, the respondents initiated the proceedings to impose penalty upon the petitioner under section 45A of the Act. In the course of the above proceedings, the petitioner was directed to produce C forms as well as other documents. In the said circumstances, the respondents initiated the proceedings to impose penalty upon the petitioner under section 45A of the Act. In the course of the above proceedings, the petitioner was directed to produce C forms as well as other documents. Even though the petitioner produced the books of account, the C forms were not produced and requested to extend the time, which was granted enabling the petitioner to obtain the same from the alleged consignee. On July 15, 2002, the petitioner produced photocopies of the C forms and subsequently, the originals were also produced. While so, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mangalore, vide his letter dated August 22, 2002 informed the Department that the alleged consignee was not a registered dealer at all and that the Department had not issued any C forms to the said party. This clearly showed that the C forms produced by the petitioner were quite bogus and fabricated, with intent to avail of the concessional rate of tax. In the above-said circumstances, the Departmental authorities issued exhibit P1 notice imposing penalty upon the petitioner under section 45A of the Act, which was replied as per exhibit P2 statement of objections. After considering the points raised by the petitioner, the third respondent passed exhibit P3 order holding that there was a conscious attempt to evade the payment of tax due to the Government, by producing bogus C forms; that too, stated as obtained from the consignee at Mangalore, who was never in existence. Considering the magnitude of the default committed and the offence involved, the third respondent chose to impose the maximum penalty, which is equal to double the amount of tax payable and accordingly, issued exhibit P3 order. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the second respondent pointing out that, the petitioner is only an innocent seller and that he was not at all in a position to ascertain the status, extent and such other particulars of the consignee in Mangalore. It was also pointed out that, the consignee had come over to Ernakulam, stayed in a hotel, entered into an agreement with the petitioner, there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt the credibility of the consignee and hence that there was absolutely no attempt to defraud the Revenue under any circumstances. It was also pointed out that, the consignee had come over to Ernakulam, stayed in a hotel, entered into an agreement with the petitioner, there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt the credibility of the consignee and hence that there was absolutely no attempt to defraud the Revenue under any circumstances. It was also contended that, the petitioner having effected the differential tax (since C forms submitted were stated as not acceptable), the petitioner might be spared with respect to the imposition of penalty. After considering the pleadings and the materials on record, the second respondent found that there was absolutely no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and that the conscious role played by the petitioner in causing the bogus C forms to be filed for claiming the tax benefit, is very much discernible from the materials on record. In the said circumstance, interference was declined as per exhibit P4; which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing second revision before the first respondent. The second revisional authority considered the entire facts and circumstances and found that absolutely no ground was made out to have a deviation to the course pursued by the authorities below. Accordingly, the impugned order was confirmed as per exhibit P5, imposing the maximum penalty, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the various decisions rendered by the apex court as well as different High Courts in State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222 (SC), Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1986] 62 STC 112 (SC), Agfa-Gavert India Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] 123 STC 108 (Mad), Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC), Paisons v. Intelligence Officer [1993] 1 KTR 143 (Ker) and Karthik Electric Controls v. Commercial Tax Officer, Podanur Circle, Coimbatore [2008] 15 VST 450 (Mad) submits that, the Departmental authorities have not approached the issue in the proper perspective while considering the question of penalty. The learned counsel submits that penalty is not automatic and that, it will be attracted only if there is a conscious attempt on the part of the defaulter to have defrauded the revenue. The learned counsel submits that penalty is not automatic and that, it will be attracted only if there is a conscious attempt on the part of the defaulter to have defrauded the revenue. It is further pointed out that the imposition of penalty will not be justified unless and until the offence in this regard is established beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no dispute with regard to the law declared by the courts as above and that in almost all the above cases, the issue involved was whether the seller was liable for the subsequent course and conduct pursued by the buyer; which was answered in the negative. Unlike this, in the instant case, the question involved is, whether the petitioner had pursued any act to defeat or defraud the Revenue by submitting bogus C forms. This question has been considered by the original authority, i.e., third respondent while passing exhibit P3 order, particularly at running pages 5 to 9, wherein the "statement of objection" submitted by the petitioner has been extracted. In sub-paragraph 4 of the above extract, the petitioner has virtually conceded that, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Check-post, Mangalore by his letter dated December 26, 2001 had informed the petitioner that the concerned consignee was not available at Mangalore and that the sales tax registration number in the invoices was fictitious. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was requested to furnish details of the sales and also other necessary particulars. Accordingly, the petitioner forwarded the documents as given at serial Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned therein. Referring to the said admission made by the petitioner, it has been observed by the third respondent at running page 12 of exhibit P3 order that the Departmental authorities had contradicted the petitioner with regard to the infirmities and discrepancies borne out by the records and explanation was sought for. It is also pointed out that as per the notice dated April 30, 2002 issued by Departmental authorities, it was informed that the consignee was a fictitious person. It was also referred to therein that the assessee himself had admitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Check-post, Mangalore had intimated the fictitious character of the consignee, as per letter dated December 26, 2001. It was also referred to therein that the assessee himself had admitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Check-post, Mangalore had intimated the fictitious character of the consignee, as per letter dated December 26, 2001. The next sequence of events is as follows : After obtaining time from the Departmental authorities for producing the C forms, the petitioner produced photocopies of the C forms on July 15, 2002 and thereafter produced the originals as well. The C forms were actually dated July 9, 2002, which shows that at the time of procurement of the said C forms, the petitioner was admittedly having a copy of the letter dated June 26, 2001 sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Check-post, Mangalore, stating that there was no consignee in the address and that it was only a fictitious person. It was without any regard to the intimation given by the authorities, that the petitioner chose to produce the above C forms, without conducting further enquiry or investigation as to its credibility, thus seeking to sustain the concession availed of, having remitted the reduced tax at the rate of four per cent. It was pursuant to this, that the genuineness of the C forms was got verified by the Department by sending them to their "counterpart" in Mangalore, whereupon it was categorically revealed that the Departmental authorities in Mangalore had not issued any such C forms. Accordingly, the third respondent arrived at a finding that the course pursued by the petitioner deserved maximum penalty and thus passed exhibit P3 order. It was after considering all the relevant aspects covered by exhibit P3, that the revisional authorities passed exhibit P4 and exhibit P5, upholding and confirming exhibit P3 order. This court does not find any tenable ground to interfere with the findings and reasoning of the Departmental authorities, which is perfectly within the four walls of the law. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this court to the fact that the petitioner had already filed a private complaint against the misdeeds of the consignee, invoking the provisions under sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as borne by exhibit P6 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Aluva, which was forwarded for investigation by the police under section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. It is also conceded that the petitioner did not file any protest complaint when the police, after investigation chose to refer the matter; nor did it choose to file appropriate proceedings before the concerned courts in Mangalore. Yet another aspect brought to the notice of this court is that, according to the petitioner, the C forms were obtained from the alleged consignee at Mangalore by post. This means, after confronting with the situation, the petitioner had contacted the concerned consignee and pursuant to this, the petitioner is stated as supplied with the C forms by post. When such C forms reached the hands of the petitioner, as mentioned already, the incriminating circumstances had already been communicated to the petitioner by the Departmental authorities, despite which the petitioner simply chose to produce those bogus documents in support of the claim for concessional rate of tax. Absolutely no material, such as postal cover or any other document has been produced by the petitioner, even to show that the alleged C forms were received by post and hence no reliance can be placed on the stand of the petitioner that, after sending the bogus C forms, the concerned consignee disappeared from the arena. In the abovesaid facts and circumstances, there is no tenable ground to call for interference. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.