{"id":265900,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-11T03:46:28","modified_gmt":"2018-04-10T22:16:28","slug":"sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 291?! DAY OF A'\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE *MA.NJ['iiiA'< 00\n\nAND   ' \nTHE HONBLE MR. JUs9rii_\u00a7E'K. AACEOX\/"iNV[3_ARAJ'Ui0U\nSALES TAX APPEALN is 015 2009' \n\nBEVWEEN\n\nSri.Va1erian  I \n'Amith' Bej'aiVNe';W_Rd.;\u00ab A _   A\nBeja1'Post".       APPELLANT\n\n(By S:'i'.'P. E. Umesh,\nM \/ s. Global. vLa\u00bbw<.  C,\u00bb Ad'voCa.tes]\n\nAND\n\nThe_\u00a7Addi_tiona1" Commissioner\n\n' V'  . of 'Corr21meIv:ia1 Takes\n_ . Z'o--n_e-1,,' Van_ijya Terige Bhavan\n"  Gandh_i'11agaI=- _ \n\nBanga1o1'e.'\u00a756:0 009  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
 [By44S1.’i:’vT..VI4′{. Vedamurthy, HCGP]<\/p>\n
  “=–._This Appeal is \ufb01led u\/s 24(1) of the KST Act
\n _ A :ageu’.r1si: the Revision Order dated 21.10.2008 passed in
\n  N;0.ZAC-1\/MNG\/SMRMII\/07-08, T. NO.662\/O8~09 on
\nA  …the file of the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,<\/p>\n
Zone–l, Bangalore, revising and setting aside the appeal
\norder and restoring the orders of assessment\u00bb, and
\npenalty of the check post authority and ac’cor’di’i:g1y
\nconcluding the revision proceedings.  .   A” 5 . A <\/p>\n
This Appeal coming on for  <\/p>\n
Manjula Chellur J., delivered thc~fol.1ow:?_ng; ‘ A  A<\/p>\n
JUDGMs\u00a7j”\n<\/p>\n
On our direction, 1ea~rn’ed G’ove’rnmentT<\/p>\n
Advocate placed before usp..t’h’e. filepertaining to
\nthe assessment of sales 2002*
\n03 (\ufb01’Bd\/snl\ufb02vekfkaro ext \ufb02vp,l@d} \ufb01br short’h4\/s.
\nVivek Petz\u00e9w  p\u00e9\ufb02sea. The questions of
\nlaw  A I
\n ll   . the facts and<\/p>\n
c1rculmslt.aric_es of t_he case the<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated against the
\n Appellant under Sections 28wAA of the
\n fxiariaataka Sales Tax Act<\/a>, 1957 are void
\nT17;ab”1niuo H1 vunv of due \ufb01u\ufb01:that the
\n” ‘goods had become part of local stock of
\nthe consignor, who is also a registered
\ndealer under the said Act, before they<\/p>\n
were transported outside the State and<\/p>\n
the said Section is applicable only in<\/p>\n
case of transportation of in1p0rtV\u00e9d.]~.i’<\/p>\n
goods by using Karnataka as a   <\/p>\n
state’?\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whether on the    <\/p>\n
circumstances _ of 7the–_ casieA,.l”‘ the’; <\/p>\n
Respondent has ,\u00a7Q.mmitted ‘an “error”in’V<\/p>\n
ignoring  the V__sili”o_r_nission “-o_f Hvgithe
\nAppellant’—-thjat  of Section
\n28-<\/a>-AA of the’ Tax Act<\/a>,
\n ‘are the facts of<\/p>\n
 “the j\u00e9.17Ese’nt ca-s_e’.7-7  ‘<\/p>\n
  sigma  facts and<\/p>\n
” 4’   of the case the
\n  right in rejecting the
\nllcontentioln of the Appellant that the
\n proceedings initiated against the
\n :,”‘A:ppellant under Section 28<\/a>~AA of the\n<\/p>\n
 -Kiirnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is void-
\n. ‘”Lab–intio in View of Explanation to the
\nsaid Section according to which hirer of<\/p>\n
the goods Vehicle is presumed to be its
\nowner and not the registered owner of<\/p>\n
the vehicle’?\n<\/p>\n
\n
Whether<\/p>\n
Circumstances of<\/p>\n
on the facts and<\/p>\n
the Case<\/p>\n
Respondent is right in holding thatvi’or:~_:x\u00a5.
\nthe purpose of Explanation to  ‘
\n28~~AA of the Karnataka  7 <\/p>\n
1957, consignor of the
\nconsidered as the “hi\u00abr_ei1″‘_VAof the ggoo’dsJ”~ it<\/p>\n
vehicle and thefsaid Word; _”hvi_rer”””is<\/p>\n
applicable to  transporter _\\}Jho
\nobtains goods wfehiele.__on”vhire in case<\/p>\n
he does not own a’good.siV’ve:hi_e1e ‘P<\/p>\n
 A    V’  and<\/p>\n
_A . of the ease the
\nit justified in drawing a
\nit  the goods in question<\/p>\n
haVe.he_en sold inside the State for the<\/p>\n
gonly reason that the transit pass has<\/p>\n
ihVetV’.1been surrendered at the exit check<\/p>\n
 inspite of the fact that the<\/p>\n
assessing authority of the eonsignor<\/p>\n
has in his assessment order passed
\nunder the provision of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Act, 1957 given a finding<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
that the very same goods as that
\ninvolved in the present case have
\ntransported out of the State.’  <\/p>\n
Karnataka ‘P<\/p>\n
2. The admitted facts in the’pre–se1i1;t.c’ase,_are the 7<\/p>\n
appellant is a transporter engaged in  of<\/p>\n
transportation of goods.  rr1or1th_l_o’f  the
\nconsignment belonging   llama M\/S
\nVivek Petro —  registered’ ‘dealer-“uln’d:erl-Karnataka Sales
\nTax Act,  of a product
\ncalled   lhe contention of the
\n pass which was required to
\nbe talrenmbyl  the person incharge of the<\/p>\n
vehicle at  checkpost after commencement of<\/p>\n
‘ Vlthe t–1fvE111sit”w_as not handed over at the exit check post.<\/p>\n
  presumption under Sub–section 4 of<\/p>\n
Selction  is available to hold that the consignment<\/p>\n
  not move out of the State but was sold within the<\/p>\n
U V’ State.\n<\/p>\n
\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
3. In the present case, the transit pass was___issued<\/p>\n
by Kannur CheCkPost, Kannur and the exit <\/p>\n
was Attibele near Hosur. Admittedly, the <\/p>\n
reach the destination outside ..the..’Statedl_lof.-li\ufb01ariiataka<\/p>\n
i.e.. Pondieherry. On the basislllof  of V<\/p>\n
pass (T?) at Attibele   time’<\/p>\n
under the above said…provisior1l;;:they notlonlyl imposed
\ntax but also levied   transported.<\/p>\n
The contentitrirp-of  was apart
\nfrom the   representative of
\nthe     Mangalore, who was
\ninehargepll the commencement of the<\/p>\n
journey till”  1’each’edl'”the destination and he was the<\/p>\n
one.l:lvv.hotook  only the transit pass but was<\/p>\n
  \\vi.t.h..~~the duty of handing over the same at exit<\/p>\n
cheek  Therefore, the owner of the vehicle was not<\/p>\n
 liable.’  pay either the tax or the penalty imposed.<\/p>\n
  ‘However, the order dated 10.12.2003 by the Assessing<\/p>\n
-~-Clffieer goes to show that the said defence was not<\/p>\n
accepted and they proceeded to impose  of<\/p>\n
Rs.l0,800\/– and another Rs.10,800\/~ as <\/p>\n
was challenged before the appellate <\/p>\n
Appeal N0.2lO\/03-042.\n<\/p>\n
4. The appellate a.uthority<_v_in  <\/p>\n
after taking into consideratio'npV:'thVat theialslsesfsment on
\nthe return submittefdliby  the goods i.e.,
\nVivek Petro, l\\\/i_angalAore.,'.  there was no
\nevasion of_  assumption taxes
\ncannot   assessee being able
\nto  of goods outside the State
\nand not'-rjglsold State. According to the<\/p>\n
appellate aulth–ori_t_yH,_ the order of assessment passed<\/p>\n
\u00bbA  12(2) of the Act by the Assistant<\/p>\n
Coin'missio-ner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore,<\/p>\n
indicates there was no evasion of any taxes and all the<\/p>\n
 goods imported by M\/s Vivek Petro were the subject<\/p>\n
rnatter of assessment and all the consignments which<\/p>\n
were to reach Pondioherry unit belonged to the Very<\/p>\n
owner M \/ s Vivek Petro but did in fact reach <\/p>\n
which was evident by the very endorse1fn'ente:VV'o'f"l <\/p>\n
Superintendent of Central E.1XCise.,._  'dated V<\/p>\n
9.9.2003. It also refers to the re'1.eas.'et'of  <\/p>\n
naptha in favour of the conlsigiaor and __also letlteVrs"issued'V'<\/p>\n
by the Deputy Commereialyyi-Test'fjffieer of Poxidicherry.
\nThe assessing authoritythadt- ,AA(_;:.~'.)vli1'\u00a7_'l11SlOI1 that all
\nthe entries    out of the
\nState.  appellate authority
\nallowed H l   V V' the appellant, setting
\naside     check post officer dated<\/p>\n
l0.12..200:\u00a7."' The revisional authority took up the<\/p>\n
' V' '*–matter by Way of suo~motto revision and issued a show<\/p>\n
 sea-u;sei'no't.ie'eVtoythe assessee calling upon him to explain<\/p>\n
the *—..con_tent.sd of the notice. The assessee appeared<\/p>\n
.u""'-Lbeforez the revisional authority and submitted the<\/p>\n
 e.iex_p'l-ariation. However, the revisional authority found<\/p>\n
the order of the appellate authority as improper and<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Post Office for fresh consideration in
\nView of above mentioned Judgment. ‘<\/p>\n
3. The FAA has misread the provision
\nSection 28(6) of KST Act while allowing”
\nthe appeal as the said proVis_i,0_ns=..rel.ate_
\nto conclusion of provisional assessr1ierit._jp.
\norder by the inspecting a,u’tjhority’whic’hp
\nis independent of provisions of _v’sectioi1:*._.
\n28AA[4). The,’proceedin’gs up\/s 1 s 28(6)
\nand 28AA (4) a1″e_findepe1iden._t “an’d”t’i’1e”
\npowers are confirmed  the
\ninspecting:-‘.3 auth’o1ity’- “-and the V-‘CPO
\nrespectivelyfi On the~–.._”oasis of orders
\npassed u\/s :>,s(s;la,z t1_1effA.CCT (Ins) II
\nMan.VgaloreA.V~–the”\u00bb I4’;-‘XAA shi_m\/m not have
\nlini-:e_d1’.thi;s pr,o’vision.a],_orfder with the\n<\/p>\n
4.(}’i,1ElITKi:Vtuif1’CEEi’Cl”01;I- of ta\u00e9ies made 11\/ s 28AA<\/p>\n
 (4}-“m”ade,  “Therefore, on this
\n“coVunt:.V_also’;’ the” appeal order passed by<\/p>\n
”  s*\u00e9’if’i’e_r’s.V.f1’omillegality and liable to<\/p>\n
Ultimately “the”  the appellate authority were<\/p>\n
revised” and s-etg\ufb02asirde. The orders of assessment and<\/p>\n
‘ ;penalt_y’~o’f.the\\check post authority were restored.<\/p>\n
\u00ab   28–AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads
\nas unde_r:.v if
\n“Transit of goods by road through the State<\/p>\n
and issue of transit pass- (l)Where a vehicle<\/p>\n
is carrying goods taxable under this Act-<\/p>\n
– ,,\\\\r\\<\/p>\n
[a] from any place outside the State
\nand bound for any place\/outside
\nthe State and passes this<\/p>\n
State; or<\/p>\n
(b) and which good.s…aifeV’impoi\u00a7ted..pS*~–<\/p>\n
into the’; State ‘from <\/p>\n
outside  ” and 2<\/p>\n
goo’ds”*~are being ‘ carriecl-‘to any’?<\/p>\n
place o’utside the  V}
\nthe driver or  other.’person.~;in–charge of such
\nvehicle shall   information
\nand obta:ir1v.._a   l’d’uplicate containing<\/p>\n
such4..p.artiici.1lar:sas  be prescribed, from the<\/p>\n
of the’*fir’st check post or barrier<\/p>\n
iiafter  the State or after movement<\/p>\n
has the State as the case may<\/p>\n
, be, or f_1:9orn.Tthe- officer empowered for the purposes<\/p>\n
  ..sub–Asect-i-on (3) of Section 28-A<\/a>, upon<\/p>\n
i_n’tei*ce”ption of the goods vehicle after its entry into<\/p>\n
 ; t’he_~v..Stat’e or after movement has commenced as<\/p>\n
the  may be.\n<\/p>\n
(2}The driver or the person-in–charge of the<\/p>\n
 vehicle shall deliver within the stipulated time a<\/p>\n
copy of the transit pass obtained under sub\u00bb<\/p>\n
section{l) to the officer–in–charge at the last<\/p>\n
checkpost or barrier before his exit from the State.<\/p>\n
(3) If for any reason, the goods carrieyddin a<\/p>\n
goods vehicle are, after entry into <\/p>\n
after commencement of movement,-jasythe”4_<\/p>\n
may be} not moved out of .\n<\/p>\n
stipulated in the trar1sit;_Vpass.z flthe “I owner 1’s-goiltghle<\/p>\n
goods vehicle shall furnish tofi. offIcer’g<\/p>\n
empowered in this ‘Eaehalf  it such’<\/p>\n
delay and other parti-cuia.rs–~,.._ if any….th’ereof and
\nsuch officer sl’1all._afte%r’ enquiry extend the
\ntime of ‘exist  the transit<\/p>\n
  the goods carried by a<\/p>\n
vehicle  entry into the State, (or<\/p>\n
afterc’orr1r:1encer:ient of movement, as the case<\/p>\n
 it may E>”e’}-V transported outside the State by any
\n“otl1er’\u00ab.vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving<\/p>\n
   goods have actually moved out of the<\/p>\n
 ‘shall be on the owner of the vehicle who<\/p>\n
S .. originally brought the goods into the State.<\/p>\n
(4)If the driver or any other persor1–ir1–charge of
\nthe Vehicle does not comply with sub–section (2), it<\/p>\n
shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby<\/p>\n
have been sold within the State by the owner of
\nthe vehicle and shall, notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in subsection {5} of sectiovnij:5,. be
\nassessed to tax by the officer empowered:inftiliiws<\/p>\n
behalf in the prescribed manner.\n<\/p>\n
[5)If the owner of thefvyehiclev <\/p>\n
the transit pass as provided <\/p>\n
fails to deliver the sanie aslprovided “u_’r1der–‘:sub+~.’<\/p>\n
section[2), he shall be\ufb01liable to”   way of
\npenalty a sump  eXceedvi’ng.double the\ufb02amount of<\/p>\n
tax leviable on  <\/p>\n
[6}Th’e}:jp.ra’nio;i.in’\u00a3:;  ta}:t’:a1id…:the penalty levied<\/p>\n
VV’Secti”on shall be recovered in the<\/p>\n
V’prescrlbed:’manne.r;”\n<\/p>\n
l7lWh,\u20acife owner of the vehicle Who is<\/p>\n
 assessed””to._._t.ax under sub–section [4]. is carrying
\n.,afterfsu__ch assessment, any goods taxable under<\/p>\n
  a goods vehicle from any place outside<\/p>\n
t.h~e_!State [or movement from within the State, as<\/p>\n
*  case may be) and bound for any other place<\/p>\n
 outside the State and is passing through the<\/p>\n
State, the prescribed authority may demand from<\/p>\n
such owner an amount equivalent to two times the<\/p>\n
tax leviable on such goods under this Act as<\/p>\n
security.\n<\/p>\n
(8)The prescribed authority after being
\nsatisfied that the goods carried in the_..___goods<\/p>\n
vehicle in respect of which the securityaaznounii<\/p>\n
under sub\u00ab~section[7) was co11ected,__;hasj_~passedp<\/p>\n
through the State, shall refund”suchifjpse\u00e9cilritypyi<\/p>\n
amount to the owner.\n<\/p>\n
[9)’I’he prescribed authority  by
\norder adjust the Vw’h:bo~]Ve or .__a1’1yAV of
\nsecurity amount towards any amount  tax<\/p>\n
or penalty payable 7_Vu1;d,.ei<.__'t.his_ section by<\/p>\n
;'si;i'ch  _ ezj.'<\/p>\n
V "  case where a vehicle<\/p>\n
 ovvriedpd' .by  person is hired for<\/p>\n
 Etranspo'r'tat.,iQnv of goods by some other<\/p>\n
 the hirer of the vehicle shall for the<\/p>\n
it  of this section, be deemed to be the
\novrneriwnof the Vehicle). "\n<\/p>\n
~~  Presumption under subsection (4) of sec. 28w<\/p>\n
hi  the Act undisputedly is a rebuttable presumption.<\/p>\n
it  ‘?Rebuttab1e presumption would mean the person against<\/p>\n
Whom the impugned order came to be passed by the<\/p>\n
check-post officer must be able to satisfy the avu’t.-horities<\/p>\n
that there was no evasion of payment of’::tax’,:’.s:’Ifl <\/p>\n
intention of the legislature Wereuto’ bepthat irrespelctiivellof 9<\/p>\n
payment of tax on the goods  <\/p>\n
presumption was availablefto the V ‘a.s_”ses’see’;’ then’<\/p>\n
whether those goods”  \ufb01payrnent of tax
\nor not would be irrelevari’t;~5.f”‘  the fact that
\nrebuttable  ‘(to brought on record
\nby the   be open for him to
\nestablish’   walshhanded over at exit check
\npost  question did move out of the<\/p>\n
State. pTh’ere:fo’rev; presumption of sale within the State<\/p>\n
.  * woL1jlld3niotVl’be available to the revenue.<\/p>\n
A   lithe present case, the contention of the<\/p>\n
 appellant consistently was to the effect that along with<\/p>\n
A  the”~\u00ab_driver of the vehicle, the owner of the goods also<\/p>\n
i  t\u00e9ravelled because the consignor and the consignee were<\/p>\n
_ . xrx _<\/p>\n
if)<\/p>\n
one and the same. Therefore, the entire formalities at
\nthe check post were looked after by the representative of<\/p>\n
the goods. Hence, the driver who normally be<\/p>\n
illiterate would not know the details. <\/p>\n
case. the goods had to move. __fron_i””ii\/Ialngalolre to it<\/p>\n
Pondicherry which is outside the State. <\/p>\n
section 28-<\/a>-AA contemplatesivellthat thegoods: iinp’or’ted by-t<\/p>\n
the owner if moved out oft-the’fSlta.te. hehasfgto obtain
\ntransit pass, i.e. thel4l’driV’e’r_Vrl;:)’\u00bbjf:v thevlperson in Charge of<\/p>\n
the vehicle._ .The  sub~sec. (4) as<\/p>\n
alrea:dyWlsteate_d it  presumption and the
\nappellant’-reliesluipori’order of the assessment of the
\nconsi.gnorllor._:theicon-signee of the goods.<\/p>\n
  ltnis alsownlot disputed by the revenue that in<\/p>\n
 vi.evv’  sent by the cheek–post of\ufb01cer<\/p>\n
oe’rtain’i11g{.:’~”to M \/ s. Vivek Petro, investigation was made<\/p>\n
 iegard to the accounts of M\/s. Vivek Petro and<\/p>\n
Keveri intelligence wing of the revenue also made a<\/p>\n
thorough investigation both at Mangalore and<\/p>\n
Pondicherry, so far as the business of M\/ s. Vivek Petro.<\/p>\n
The material that was placed before the assessing\u00bb~.oi”f\u00a7_cer<\/p>\n
at the time of final order of assessmeritll’ind-ic’a’tesv_v<\/p>\n
whatever goods that were irnported, i.e._-‘a”pro_d1ict,v’ea11ed <\/p>\n
‘naptha’ was in fact sent to;gPond~l’1icl1errv’ aiiid–ltvvas<\/p>\n
accounted at PondicherrvipviKlt was evenJ’c._ei*ti\ufb01ed by-it<\/p>\n
Central Excise Department——at”-1\u00b0ondiclie’rryf. fit is also
\nnoted that whatever ‘ payable to the<\/p>\n
Central Excise:A’Depa{rtr–ne_rit  and these are<\/p>\n
the   ajsslessinlgfaiithority. When once the
\nassessing  took up the assessment<\/p>\n
process as avparri: of the investigation into the missing of<\/p>\n
l  * A or nlon\u00e9llaccountinlg of TPS. at exit check post, so far as<\/p>\n
  ii’\/.I_,\/Vs’.vv:l(‘ivel;;i’.e’Petro is concerned, it was satisfied that all<\/p>\n
the gc-ods7’that were imported which were meant to be<\/p>\n
 .. sent to\u00a2Ponchicherry did reach Pondichery and not even
\n “single incident where the revenue was able to<\/p>\n
“establish that it was sold within the State. He was<\/p>\n
 * .n”oi.V’ ‘<\/p>\n
  p ‘<\/p>\n
justified in saying that the assessee i.e. M \/ s. Vivek
\nPetro had accounted all the goods that were imported by
\nthem and nothing escaped from the tax. In that view of<\/p>\n
the matter, when once by way of rebuttal eviderice,..Vthe<\/p>\n
appellant relies upon the assessment order__perta;in.cirig<\/p>\n
M\/s. Vivek Petro, in the absence of _–the<\/p>\n
establising that the consignrn’entginfqi:ehstlio’n”‘d’idA <\/p>\n
move outside the State,”rev_ision’al lautlii’ority…_Vvva.s not’<\/p>\n
justified in setting aside appellate<\/p>\n
authority. As a rraatteirp-of  revisional authority<\/p>\n
did  tol’vv_hat  the rebuttable evidence
\nreliedluponl  pf the vehicle and whether the<\/p>\n
order of authority had reached \ufb01nality or<\/p>\n
    other hand, the learned Government<\/p>\n
H .i.sp’p:=.fair enough to bring to our notice that the<\/p>\n
orldeprlopf assessment pertaining to M \/ s. Vivek Petro was<\/p>\n
 tthesubject matter of suo moto revision under section<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 291?! DAY OF A’ PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE *MA.NJ[‘iiiA'< 00 AND ' THE HONBLE MR. JUs9rii_\u00a7E'K. AACEOX\/"iNV[3_ARAJ'Ui0U SALES TAX APPEALN is 015 2009' BEVWEEN […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-265900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-10T22:16:28+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-10T22:16:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2644,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-10T22:16:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-10T22:16:28+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-10T22:16:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":2644,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","name":"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-10T22:16:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-valerian-rodrigues-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Valerian Rodrigues vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/265900","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=265900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}