{"id":55089,"date":"2007-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007"},"modified":"2014-04-18T21:20:24","modified_gmt":"2014-04-18T15:50:24","slug":"joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 8442 of 1998(E)\n\n\n\n1. JOSEPH KALAPURACKAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE ADDL.SALES TAX OFFICER-II\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :26\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                              S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                           --------------------------\n\n                           O.P.NO. 8442 OF 1998\n\n                           -------------------------\n\n         DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act<\/p>\n
(K.G.S.T. Act, for short) on the files of first respondent.  In this original<\/p>\n
petition, he is challenging Exts.P5, P9 and P13 orders of the authorities<\/p>\n
under   the   K.G.S.T.   Act,   which   are   the   original   penalty   order   under<\/p>\n
Section   45A   and   the   revisional   orders.     The   facts   necessary   for<\/p>\n
disposal of the original petition are as follows:<\/p>\n
       2.     By   Ext.P1   order,   the   first   respondent   imposed   on   the<\/p>\n
petitioner, penalty amounting to Rs.1,16,000\/- on the ground that he<\/p>\n
had   transported   380.41   cubic   meters   of   timber   of   various   species<\/p>\n
during   the   year   1991-92   through   the   port   of   Azheekkal   without<\/p>\n
entering the same in his books of account thus evading tax payable on<\/p>\n
the   sale   transaction.     The   petitioner   challenged   the   same   before   the<\/p>\n
Deputy   Commissioner   of   Sales   Tax.     The   Deputy   Commissioner,   by<\/p>\n
Ext.P2   order,found   that   Ext.P1   order   was   passed   in   violation   of   the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice and the matter was remanded to the first<\/p>\n
respondent   for   fresh   consideration   after   giving   an   opportunity   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   to   produce   the   books   of   account   and   to   file   detailed<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
objections.  Pursuant to the same a fresh notice,Ext.P3 was issued<\/p>\n
to the petitioner. It was stated therein that the investigation branch<\/p>\n
of   the   Agricultural   Income   Tax   and   Sales   Tax,   Kannur   gathered<\/p>\n
certain details relating to the transport of timber through the port<\/p>\n
of Azheekkal during the year 1991-92, which disclosed that 380.41<\/p>\n
Cubic meters of timber were transported outside the state as stated<\/p>\n
in the notice.   The petitioner filed Ext.P4 reply to the show cause<\/p>\n
notice   totally   denying   any   transport   of   timber   through   the<\/p>\n
Azheekkal   port   during   the   period   in   question.     He   specifically<\/p>\n
requested   the   first   respondent   to   conduct   a   detailed   enquiry   with<\/p>\n
the   Azheekkal   Port   and   to   satisfy   himself   regarding   the   specific<\/p>\n
contentions   of   the   petitioner.     The   petitioner   specifically   alleged<\/p>\n
that   there   cannot   be   any   such   entries   in   the   records   of   the<\/p>\n
Azheekkal Port.   He also claimed an opportunity to prove that the<\/p>\n
same   is   a   forged   document   by   summoning   the   records.     He<\/p>\n
specifically further alleged that no such opportunity was not given<\/p>\n
to him earlier also.  However, by Ext.P5 order, the first respondent<\/p>\n
again   imposed   penalty   of   Rs.1,16,000\/-   on   a   finding   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   had   in   fact   transported   380.41   Cubic   meters   of   timber<\/p>\n
through the Azheekkal Port.  The petitioner challenged the same in<\/p>\n
revision,   which   was   rejected   by   Ext.P9   order   by   the   Deputy<\/p>\n
commissioner.  The petitioner’s further revision before the Board of<\/p>\n
Revenue also met with the same fate by Ext.P13 order.  It is  under<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
the   above   circumstances,   the   petitioner   has   filed   this   original<\/p>\n
petition challenging Exts.P5, P9 and P13 orders.<\/p>\n
       3.      The contention of petitioner is that the burden of proof<\/p>\n
in proving that the petitioner in fact transported the timber through<\/p>\n
the   Azheekkal   Port   is   squarely   on   the   first   respondent,   which<\/p>\n
burden   he   has   failed   to   discharge.     The   petitioner   contends   that<\/p>\n
Ext.P3   notice   issued   to   the   petitioner   does   not   contain   the   vital<\/p>\n
information   regarding   the   dates   of   transport   and   the   name   of<\/p>\n
consignees,   without   which,   the   petitioner   cannot   file   any<\/p>\n
meaningful   reply   to   the   show   cause   notice.     He   would   further<\/p>\n
submit that he was also not given any copy of the extract stated to<\/p>\n
have been obtained from the  records of the Azheekkal Port, which<\/p>\n
was the basis of the proceedings against him.   He would point out<\/p>\n
that   in   Ext.P4   reply   to   the   show   cause   notice   he   had   specifically<\/p>\n
requested for an opportunity to prove that if there is actually any<\/p>\n
entries   in   the   Azheekkal   Port,   those   entries   are   false.     He   had<\/p>\n
specifically   requested   the   first   respondent   to   summon   the<\/p>\n
documents from the Azheekkal Port and to verify whether the same<\/p>\n
is correct or not which the first respondent has failed to do.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner  submits that no attempt whatsoever  has been made  by<\/p>\n
the first respondent in this direction. However he would submit that<\/p>\n
his attempt to verify the records of the Azheekkal port did not also<\/p>\n
meet   with   any   success   since   they   refused   to   divulge   any<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
information to him.  However by Ext.P8 communication, the Senior<\/p>\n
Port Conservator of the Azheekkal Port informed the petitioner that<\/p>\n
no documents relating to the year 1991-92 is available at the port,<\/p>\n
since the entire records have been destroyed by a fire occurred in<\/p>\n
the port on  15th  November,  1994.  (This is also corroborated  by a<\/p>\n
communication   dated   12.2.07   from   the   Port   Conservator   of<\/p>\n
Azheekkal   Port,   which   is   produced   before   me   by   the   learned<\/p>\n
Government   pleader,   in   answer   to   my   direction   to   obtain   the<\/p>\n
records from the Port authorities.)<\/p>\n
       4.      In the above circumstances, the petitioner would submit<\/p>\n
that the respondents have palpably failed to prove any case against<\/p>\n
the petitioner for imposition of penalty under Section 45A.  In view<\/p>\n
of the destruction of the port records he is also incapacitated from<\/p>\n
proving a negative fact also.   On that ground, the petitioner seeks<\/p>\n
quashing of the impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.      In   answer   to   the   above   contentions,   learned<\/p>\n
Government   Pleader   would   submit   that   the   petitioner   had   been<\/p>\n
repeatedly   directed   to   produce   the   books   of   account,   delivery<\/p>\n
notes, bank pass book etc., which the petitioner steadfastly refused<\/p>\n
to   do.     In   the   above   circumstances,   the   first   respondent   has   no<\/p>\n
other way to decide the case on the basis of material available with<\/p>\n
him,   which   only   he   has   done   and   therefore   the   impugned   orders<\/p>\n
are   perfectly   valid   and   proper.   According   to   learned   Government<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
Pleader   the   very   extract   from   the   Port   register   collected   by   an<\/p>\n
Officer of the Sales Tax Department would be more than sufficient<\/p>\n
to   prove   the   case   against   the   petitioner   for   imposition   of   penalty<\/p>\n
under Section 45A, especially in the absence  of any allegations of<\/p>\n
misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.      I have considered the rival contentions in detail.  At the<\/p>\n
outset   I   should   observe   that   the   papers   produced   before   me   is<\/p>\n
palpably lacking in the vital details relating to the alleged transport<\/p>\n
of the timber by the petitioner through the Azheekkal Port.   If an<\/p>\n
officer of the Sales Tax Department had in fact made an inspection<\/p>\n
of   the   Azheekkal   port   to   gather   any   information   regarding   the<\/p>\n
transport of timber by the petitioner through that port, the first and<\/p>\n
foremost thing, an officer should have collected, is the dates of the<\/p>\n
transport   as   well   as   the   names   of   the   consignees,   which<\/p>\n
information   is  not  before   me.    No  counter  affidavit  has  also  been<\/p>\n
filed   in   this   case.     Ext.P3   notice   only   reveals   some   names   of   the<\/p>\n
species of the timber allegedly transported and the quantity.   The<\/p>\n
dates   of   transport   and   names   of   assignees   are   conspicuously<\/p>\n
absent.     Inspite   of   the   specific   request   made   by   the   petitioner   in<\/p>\n
Ext.P4   seeking   summoning   of   the   documents   from   the   Azheekkal<\/p>\n
Port for which the second respondent had ample powers under the<\/p>\n
Kerala General   Sales  Tax  Act,  no effort  is  seen  made  by  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent   in   that   direction.     That   itself   would   prove   the   case   of<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
the  petitioner    to   a great  extent  that  he   has  been   denied  natural<\/p>\n
justice while imposing penalty on him.       The Government Pleader<\/p>\n
has   also   no   case   that   a   copy   of   the   extract   stated   to   have   been<\/p>\n
obtained by the Officer of the Department from the records of the<\/p>\n
Azheekkal   port   had   been   supplied   to   the   petitioner   which   also<\/p>\n
would   prove   violation   of   principles   of   natural   justice   in   passing<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 order.   Of course, the Government Pleader, on the basis of<\/p>\n
the   impugned   orders   would   raise   a   contention   that   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
had   repeatedly   refused   to   produce   the   documents   and   books   of<\/p>\n
accounts   called   for   by   the   Assessing   Officer   which   itself   shows   a<\/p>\n
guilty mind on the part of the petitioner.   But I am of opinion that<\/p>\n
perception  of guilty mind by the Assessing Officer, without support<\/p>\n
of   material   documents   to   prove   at   least   a   prima   facie   case   for<\/p>\n
imposition   of   penalty   under   Section   45A   on   the   petitioner,   is   not<\/p>\n
sufficient to pass an order  like Ext.P5, that too without complying<\/p>\n
with the principles of natural justice.   That being so, Ext.P5 order<\/p>\n
and consequently Exts.P9 and P13 orders suffer  from  serious legal<\/p>\n
infirmities and are therefore liable to be quashed.  I do so.<\/p>\n
       9.      However,   the   case   does   not   end   there.     In   all   the<\/p>\n
impugned orders, it is repeatedly stated that the petitioner has not<\/p>\n
produced   delivery   notes   and   bank   pass   books   inspite   of   direction<\/p>\n
issued   to   him   for   that   purpose.     As   I   have   already   stated     non-<\/p>\n
production of those documents have been made one of the grounds<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
to impose penalty on the petitioner but it appears that at the time<\/p>\n
of second revision, the petitioner had infact produced some delivery<\/p>\n
notes   and   pass   book.     In   respect   of   the   delivery   notes,   Board   of<\/p>\n
Revenue had found thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  ”   The   contentions   advanced   by   the<\/p>\n
           petitioner   have   been   examined   in   detail.     The<\/p>\n
           investigation   Branch   of   the   department   has<\/p>\n
           gathered   the   details   of   timber   despatched   by<\/p>\n
           the petitioner through Azheekkal port during the<\/p>\n
           year   1991-92.     As   per   the   extracts   the<\/p>\n
           petitioner   had   transported   380.41   Cms   of   the<\/p>\n
           Timber  and Timber  sizes  at various  dates from<\/p>\n
           4.4.1991   to   23.3.1992.     The   property   trade<\/p>\n
           mark   registration   in   all   the   consignment   noted<\/p>\n
           as   “PSMJ”   (Payyavur   Saw   Mills   Joseph<\/p>\n
           Kalapurakkal)   and   the   style   is   being   continued<\/p>\n
           till   date.     Shipping   fee   was   borne   by   the<\/p>\n
           petitioner   on   each   occasions   of   transport.<\/p>\n
           Therefore   the   contention   of   the   petitioner   that<\/p>\n
           somebody   had   despatched   the   goods   in   his<\/p>\n
           name   and   their   property   mark   had   been<\/p>\n
           wrongly   entered   in   the   port   records   is   not<\/p>\n
           sustainable.  The investigation branch has relied<\/p>\n
           only   on   Government   records   is   register<\/p>\n
           maintained at the port.   If there is any misuse<\/p>\n
           of property mark as contended by the petitioner<\/p>\n
           he   ought   to   have   filed   complaint   before   the<\/p>\n
           competent   authority.     But   the   petitioner   has<\/p>\n
           failed to do so.  Inspite of that he contents that<\/p>\n
           it is irrelevant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   The   Intelligence   Officer   has   verified   the<\/p>\n
           assessment records relating to the year 1991-92<\/p>\n
           and   found   that   the   originals   of   certain   delivery<\/p>\n
           notes   were   not   produced   before   the   assessing<\/p>\n
           authority.  Now at the time of hearing of the case<\/p>\n
           the   petitioner   has   produced   Triplicate   copies   of<\/p>\n
           Delivery   Notes   548651,   dated   25.1.1990.<\/p>\n
           548652\/1.2.1990,548653\/5.2.1990,548654\/21.2<\/p>\n
           .1990, 548655\/17.6.90 which shows transport of<\/p>\n
           charcoal locally.  But in the delivery note register<\/p>\n
           the date of accounting the transaction was noted<\/p>\n
           initially as 5.12.1991  which is seen  corrected as<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
         5.12.1990.     Triplicate   copies   of   delivery   note<\/p>\n
         Nos.   548691,   187258   and   187295   which   was<\/p>\n
         stated   by   the   petitioner   as   used   for   the   year<\/p>\n
         1991-92   are   seen   cancelled.     But   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
         has   not   produced   the   original   and   duplicate<\/p>\n
         copies thereon for verification.  Similarly delivery<\/p>\n
         notes 548658, 548659, 548660, 548664,548669<\/p>\n
         are also shown as cancelled.  But the original and<\/p>\n
         duplicate   copies   of   the   same   have   not   been<\/p>\n
         produced   for   verification.     In   the   absence   of<\/p>\n
         original and duplicate copies of the delivery note<\/p>\n
         the   contention   of   the   petitioner   that   the   same<\/p>\n
         was used during the previous year and promptly<\/p>\n
         accounted   in   the   regular   books   of   accounts<\/p>\n
         cannot   be   accepted.     The   manipulations   in   the<\/p>\n
         register speaks against the petitioner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      10.        In respect of the pass book produced by the petitioner<\/p>\n
also there is an observation to the following effect:<\/p>\n
                      ”       The   intelligence   officer   had<\/p>\n
               collected  details of bank deposits in the  name<\/p>\n
               of  the   petitioner   in   State   Bank   of   Travancore,<\/p>\n
               Sreekantapuram,                 Syndicate              Bank,<\/p>\n
               Sreekantapuram   and   Payyavur   Service   Co-\n<\/p>\n
               operative Bank, Sreekantapuram as detailed in<\/p>\n
               the penalty order.   The petitioner has failed to<\/p>\n
               produce the Bank pass book for verification by<\/p>\n
               the Intelligence Officer.  At the time of hearing<\/p>\n
               the   revision   petition   the   petitioner   has<\/p>\n
               produced   pass   book   issued   by   the   Syndicate<\/p>\n
               Bank,   Sreekantapuram   and   State   Bank   of<\/p>\n
               Travancore,   Sreekantapuram   along   with   the<\/p>\n
               Ledger for the year 1991-92.   The transaction<\/p>\n
               in   the   aforesaid   banks   were   accounted   in<\/p>\n
               ledger   at   pages   25   and   26.     As   per   the   Bank<\/p>\n
               pass   book   and   ledger   the   petitioner   had<\/p>\n
               received an amount of Rs.75,000\/- by Demand<\/p>\n
               draft   on   3.9.1991.     But   the   source   was   not<\/p>\n
               explained   by   him.     Further   the   petitioner   has<\/p>\n
               not produced the Bank pass book at the time of<\/p>\n
               checking   of   accounts   for   the   purpose   of<\/p>\n
               assessment   for   1991-92.     Besides   as   per   the<\/p>\n
               check note  the  assessing authority has signed<\/p>\n
               in   the   ledger   at   folios   2,3,5,7   only.     All   the<\/p>\n
O.P.8442\/98                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
               above   facts   clearly   shows   that   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
               has   failed   to   maintain   true   and   complete<\/p>\n
               accounts   relating   to   his   business   for   the   year<\/p>\n
               1991-92   and   the   penalty   imposed   by   the<\/p>\n
               Intelligence Officer is justifiable.”\n<\/p>\n
\n       In view of the said observations, I hold that it is open to the<\/p>\n
first respondent to take further proceedings against the petitioner<\/p>\n
for   not   maintaining   true   and   correct   accounts   as   required   under<\/p>\n
law, in spite of my quashing of the impugned orders on the ground<\/p>\n
that   no   evasion   of   tax   has   been   proved   by   showing   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  had actually transported timber  through the Azheekkal<\/p>\n
port.     With   the   above   observations,   this   original   petition   is<\/p>\n
disposed of.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                         S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nAcd\n\n\nO.P.8442\/98    10\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 8442 of 1998(E) 1. JOSEPH KALAPURACKAL … Petitioner Vs 1. THE ADDL.SALES TAX OFFICER-II … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated […]<\/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-55089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJoseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 - 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\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-18T15:50:24+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-18T15:50:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2142,\"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\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-18T15:50:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 - 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\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-18T15:50:24+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-18T15:50:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007"},"wordCount":2142,"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\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007","name":"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-18T15:50:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-kalapurackal-vs-the-addl-sales-tax-officer-ii-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joseph Kalapurackal vs The Addl.Sales Tax Officer-Ii on 26 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/55089","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=55089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55089\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}