{"id":235828,"date":"2008-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008"},"modified":"2014-07-05T16:24:27","modified_gmt":"2014-07-05T10:54:27","slug":"ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 2000 of 2008()\n\n\n1. M\/S.J&J TIMBERS, 23\/418, MAIN ROAD,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB)\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSMT.)\n\n3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SENIOR)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :06\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n            H.L.DATTU, C.J. & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n               ------------------------------------------------------\n                            W.A.No.2000 of 2008\n                  ----------------------------------------------\n                Dated, this the 6th day of October, 2008\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
              This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.26857\/2008 dated 16th September,<\/p>\n
2008. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has rejected the<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
              2. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has called in<\/p>\n
question Exts.P4 and P7 notices issued by the first respondent,<\/p>\n
Intelligence Officer (IB), Investigation Branch, Department of<\/p>\n
Commercial Taxes, Kollam, in exercise of the powers under Section<\/p>\n
45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for brevity and<\/p>\n
convenience, hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1963”).<\/p>\n
              3. The subject matter of Ext.P4 notice is evasion of tax by<\/p>\n
the petitioner by making bogus claim of sale of timber at concessional<\/p>\n
rate without any actual sale of timber to the form 18 suppliers – M\/s.J and<\/p>\n
J Timbers, Chalakudy and the penalty proposed for the years 2001-02 to<\/p>\n
2004-05.    In the lengthy notice issued, the Intelligence Officer has<\/p>\n
narrated in detail the reasons and his tentative opinion for initiating<\/p>\n
penalty proceedings and then has directed the assessee to offer its<\/p>\n
explanation, if any.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
               4. After receipt of the notice, the assessee has filed its<\/p>\n
objection, denying the accusation made in the notice and further has<\/p>\n
requested to drop the proposed proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
               5. The Intelligence Officer after receipt of the reply and<\/p>\n
after considering the same, by reiterating his earlier proposal made, has<\/p>\n
issued Ext.P7 notice and further has granted an opportunity to produce<\/p>\n
evidence, if any, to the petitioner in support of his defence\/explanation in<\/p>\n
the reply filed to Ext.P4 notice.\n<\/p>\n
               6. It is the legality or otherwise of the show cause notice is<\/p>\n
called in question by the assessee by filing the writ petition. As we have<\/p>\n
already noticed, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.<\/p>\n
It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order is the subject matter of<\/p>\n
this writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
               7. Sri.Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Counsel would<\/p>\n
contend, that, the appellant is an assessee on the files of Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner (Asst.), Special Circle, Thrissur, who is an officer higher<\/p>\n
grade than the officer who has initiated penalty proceedings under<\/p>\n
Section 45A of the KGST Act and the assessments for the assessment<\/p>\n
years 2000-2001 to 2004-05 are pending before the assessing authority<\/p>\n
and the assessing authority alone can make assessment and impose<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
penalty, if any. Secondly, the learned counsel would contend, even<\/p>\n
before the final assessment could be completed, his power of assessment<\/p>\n
cannot be usurped by the Intelligence Officer who has initiated<\/p>\n
proceedings under Section 45A of the Act, by taking decision on the<\/p>\n
correctness or otherwise of Form 18 declarations. These are the only two<\/p>\n
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing the<\/p>\n
appeal for “admission”, though several other grounds are taken in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of writ appeal filed.\n<\/p>\n
              8. Chapter V of the Act provides for assessment, collection<\/p>\n
and penalty of tax under the Act. Chapter VII of the Act deals with<\/p>\n
offences and penalties. It is settled law in so far as KGST provisions are<\/p>\n
concerned, that, the proceedings under Chapter V and proceedings under<\/p>\n
Chapter VII of the Act are different and distinct. It would be useful now<\/p>\n
to refer to Section 45A of the Act which falls within Chapter VII. The<\/p>\n
said provision is as under:\n<\/p>\n
                  “45A.    Imposition of penalty by officers and<\/p>\n
           authorities (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in<\/p>\n
           section 46 if the assessing authority or the Appellate<\/p>\n
           Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that any person,<\/p>\n
                   (a) being a person required to register himself<\/p>\n
            as dealer under this Act, did not get himself<\/p>\n
            registered; or<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                    -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
               (b) has failed to keep true and complete<\/p>\n
         accounts; or<\/p>\n
               (c) has failed to submit any return as required<\/p>\n
         by the provisions of this Act or the rule made<\/p>\n
         thereunder; or<\/p>\n
               (d) has submitted an untrue or incorrect return;<\/p>\n
        or<\/p>\n
               (e) has failed to comply with all or any of the<\/p>\n
         terms of any notice or summons issued to him by or<\/p>\n
         under the provisions of this Act or the rules made<\/p>\n
         thereunder; or<\/p>\n
               (f) after purchasing any goods in respect of<\/p>\n
         which he has made a declaration under proviso to<\/p>\n
         sub-section (3) of Section 5, has failed to make use of<\/p>\n
         the goods for the declared purpose; or<\/p>\n
               (g) has acted in contravention of any of the<\/p>\n
         provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder,<\/p>\n
         for the contravention of which no expression<\/p>\n
         provision for payment of penalty or for punishment is<\/p>\n
         made by this Act;\n<\/p>\n
               (h) or has abetted the commission of any of the<\/p>\n
         above offences,<\/p>\n
               such authority or officer may direct that such<\/p>\n
         person shall pay, by way of penalty, an amount not<\/p>\n
         exceeding twice the amount of Sales Tax or other<\/p>\n
         amount evaded or sought to be evaded, where it is<\/p>\n
         practicable to quantify the evasion or an amount not<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
           exceeding ten thousand rupees in any other case.<\/p>\n
                  Explanation I: The burden of proving that any<\/p>\n
           person is not liable to the penalty under this Section<\/p>\n
           shall be on such person.\n<\/p>\n
                  Explanation II:      Fort he purposes of this<\/p>\n
           sub-section the expression “assessing authority”<\/p>\n
           includes any officer not below the rank of a Sales Tax<\/p>\n
           Officer specified by the Government in this behalf by<\/p>\n
           notification in the gazette.\n<\/p>\n
                  (2) No order under sub-section (1) shall be<\/p>\n
           passed unless the person on whom the penalty is<\/p>\n
           proposed to be imposed is given an opportunity of<\/p>\n
           being heard in the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
              9. The Section commences with a non-obstante clause. It<\/p>\n
says, that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 46 of the Act,<\/p>\n
the assessing authority or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, if he is<\/p>\n
satisfied that any person who has committed any offences specified<\/p>\n
under clauses (a) to (h), may direct such person to pay penalty not<\/p>\n
exceeding twice the amount of sales tax or other amount evaded or<\/p>\n
sought to be evaded, where it is practicable to quantify the evasion of tax<\/p>\n
or an amount not exceeding ten thousand rupees in every other case.<\/p>\n
              10. Explanation I appended to Section casts the burden on<\/p>\n
the dealer that he is not liable to the penalty under Section 45A of the<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
               11. Explanation II appended to the Section defines the<\/p>\n
meaning of expression “assessing authority”.            It is an inclusive<\/p>\n
definition. In view of this explanation, “assessing authority” includes<\/p>\n
any officer not below the sales tax officer specified by the Government<\/p>\n
in this behalf by issuing a notification in the official gazette. It is not in<\/p>\n
dispute nor it can be disputed that the Intelligence Officer is also treated<\/p>\n
as an “assessing officer” for the purpose of Section 45A of the Act.<\/p>\n
               12. While interpreting taxing statutes, it is often said, the<\/p>\n
courts should always keep in mind the purpose of the Act and the object<\/p>\n
of particular section. The courts should always seek to find out the<\/p>\n
intention of the legislature and this can be done by referring to the<\/p>\n
language used in the statute itself.\n<\/p>\n
               13. Section 45A of the Act, provides for imposition of<\/p>\n
penalty by officers and authorities under the Act, if those authorities are<\/p>\n
satisfied that any person, being a person required to register himself as a<\/p>\n
dealer under the Act, but has not registered himself, has failed to keep<\/p>\n
true and complete accounts, has failed to submit any returns as required<\/p>\n
under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, etc. may impose a penalty.<\/p>\n
Since penalty proceedings are quasi criminal proceedings, the imposition<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
of penalty can be done only after a show cause notice to the assessee and<\/p>\n
after affording an opportunity of hearing. The proceeding contemplated<\/p>\n
by Section 45A has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the assessing<\/p>\n
authority. Merely because the assessment proceedings are pending for<\/p>\n
several years,    it does not preclude the Intelligence Officer of the<\/p>\n
Department to initiate proceedings under Section 45A of the Act. These<\/p>\n
proceedings in our view, need not have to wait till the regular assessment<\/p>\n
proceedings are completed by the assessing officer. The proceedings<\/p>\n
under Section 45A can be initiated and continued by an officer who has<\/p>\n
been authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification in the<\/p>\n
Gazette. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Intelligence Officer has no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to initiate 45A proceedings during the pendency of regular<\/p>\n
assessment proceedings before the assessing officer, since penalty is<\/p>\n
imposed on a person on account of the commission of wrongful act and<\/p>\n
secondly, penalty proceedings are distinct and different from assessment<\/p>\n
proceedings and thirdly, findings in the assessment proceedings are not<\/p>\n
conclusive and the findings therein would only be a piece of evidence<\/p>\n
and the authority authorised to impose penalty should consider the entire<\/p>\n
material afresh before imposing penalty.\n<\/p>\n
              14.     We sum it up by observing that          the penalty<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
proceedings is an independent proceedings and is initiated to punish the<\/p>\n
violation of the statutory provision by a person and merely because the<\/p>\n
assessment proceedings are pending before a superior officer, it is not a<\/p>\n
bar for the intelligence officer, who has been authorised by the<\/p>\n
Government by issuing a notification in the Gazette to initiate and<\/p>\n
complete the proceedings under Section 45A of the Act.<\/p>\n
               15. We are only at the stage of show cause notices issued<\/p>\n
by the first respondent. In our opinion, the writ court can entertain a<\/p>\n
petition, if for any reason, the authority who has issued the notice has no<\/p>\n
competence to issue such notice or the notice issued is contrary to the<\/p>\n
statutory provisions etc,. These grounds are neither urged nor argued<\/p>\n
by the writ petitioner. Under the rule requiring exhaustion of remedies<\/p>\n
provided under the Act, prior to judicial review by this court, a party may<\/p>\n
not ask a court to rule on an adverse decision of a statutory authority<\/p>\n
until he has availed himself of all possible remedies provided under the<\/p>\n
statute itself. The major purpose of exhaustion doctrine is to prevent<\/p>\n
the courts from interfering with the administrative process by statutory<\/p>\n
authorities until they have reached a conclusion.<\/p>\n
               16. The Supreme Court has stated the reasons why it is<\/p>\n
desirable to the writ court not to disturb statutory proceedings. Because<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                       -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
taxing statutes often vest with the statutory authorities with exclusive<\/p>\n
procedures, it is that statutory authority which is initially responsible for<\/p>\n
interpreting and applying its own statute.      Failure to exhaust statutory<\/p>\n
remedies deprives the court the benefit of the statutory authorities<\/p>\n
experience in exercising administrative discretion as well as a factual<\/p>\n
record to review. The authorities under the Act are created for the<\/p>\n
purpose of applying the statute in the first instance. Accordingly, it is<\/p>\n
normally desirable to let all statutory authorities develop the necessary<\/p>\n
factual background upon which decision should be based. And since the<\/p>\n
decision of the statutory authorities frequently require expertise, the<\/p>\n
authorities should be given the first chance to exercise their discretion<\/p>\n
and further apply their expertise.         Apart from this, the statutory<\/p>\n
authorities are created as a separate entity and is vested with certain<\/p>\n
powers and duties, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the<\/p>\n
action of the statutory authorities until it has completed its own action or<\/p>\n
else has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction.        We hasten to add, the<\/p>\n
exhaustion doctrine is not inflexible and when the reasons supporting the<\/p>\n
doctrine are found inapplicable, the doctrine should not be blindly<\/p>\n
applied.\n<\/p>\n
              17. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has not<\/p>\n
W.A.2000\/2008                    -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected,<\/p>\n
without reference to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
             Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (H.L.DATTU)
\n                                                CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                           (THOMAS P.JOSEPH)
\n                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
MS\/dk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 2000 of 2008() 1. M\/S.J&J TIMBERS, 23\/418, MAIN ROAD, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB) … Respondent 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSMT.) 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, For Petitioner :SRI.M.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SENIOR) For […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-05T10:54:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-05T10:54:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1976,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-05T10:54:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-05T10:54:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-05T10:54:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008"},"wordCount":1976,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008","name":"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-05T10:54:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jj-timbers-vs-the-intelligence-officerib-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.J&J Timbers vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 6 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}