Jay Yes Traders vs The Inspecting Assistant … on 28 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28710 of 2004(P)


1. JAY YES TRADERS, KUNNAMUNDA JUNCTION,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),

4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

5. THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SALES TAX

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :28/11/2008

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ....................................................................
                          W.P.(C) No.28710 of 2004
               ....................................................................
              Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008.

                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order wherunder for the

offence of smuggling rubber out of the State without payment of tax,

the Adjudicating Officer has demanded penalty at five times the

amount of tax under two heads which is the scheme of compounding

provided under the Act. I heard Senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. On going through Ext.P8 and after hearing counsel appearing

for both sides, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings on

attempt to smuggle goods through Check Post proved by the

department. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, there is no

scope for interference because the amount demanded is under the

compounding scheme and the alternative for the department was to

recover cost of the rubber and value of the lorry released under the

2

orders of this court. In fact, the officer has limited penalty to the extent

secured by this court under the judgment referred to therein. The W.P.

is accordingly disposed of upholding Ext.P8.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms