{"id":859,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-19T04:36:10","modified_gmt":"2015-09-18T23:06:10","slug":"sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D … vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D … vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAHGALGRE\n\nBATEB THIS THE 29\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR3. JUSTICE MANJULA \n\nTHE 1a:o1~z'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.  A  \n\n'1'.A..E.'i'. No.3 Iii?'  ,\u00ab  .\nBI3'I'W3:\u00bbEN  J n V\n\nSri. Deepak D' Souza\n\nS\/0 Sebastian D' Souza   \nSAC House, HaIeym'1gadyA\"Po.\u00e9t :4 \nM-a.nga1ore--574 146'\u00bb  -     ...AI'PELLAN'I'\n\n(By \u00e9x\u00a7i.*<f3. vK:.'*.f; and Sri. 9. E. Umesh,\nM\/s. (\ufb02pbai Law'*\u00ab.I':z9."-Atiirocatesl\n\n  A\u00e9d\u00a7'tionai V\u00e9gmmissioner of\n\n\\\\\\J{"'"\u00e9s\n\n ' .V.CIozn32g\u00e9r_c:via.;i---Taxes\n . E:;ne5'-'I;'--X?_'a:iVi};\u00a7?a Terige Bhavan\n'G\u00abamihitxagax':_ \n\nB"e.ng~a1\u00a2:ei-560 009  RES?ORDEN'I'\n\n  A. {By S'r"i.. T. K. Vedamdurthy, HCGP)\n\nThis TAET is filed :1\/s 16 of the KTEG Act\n\n   \u00a7agaix1st the Revision Order dated 3.11.2008 passed\n'  in No.ZAC--1\/MNG\/SMR-()7 83 0?A\/0'?-08 on the \ufb01le\n\nof the Add}. Commissianer of Commercial Taxes,\nZone-1, Bangalore, revising and setting aside the\nappeai orders and restoring the orders of assessment\nand penalty of the check post authority and\naccor\u00e9ingly concluding the revision proceedings.\n\n\n\n"3\n\nThis TAET coming on for Admission this day,\nManjula Chellur J., delivered the fallowing:\nJ U D G M E N '1?\nOn our direction, the learned Government\n\nAdvocate placed before Ire the original file perteirning\n\nto the assessment of sales tax for the \n\n2002-63 of M\/s. Vivek Petra Co.  ._si;a\u00a7:v::s\ufb01:.V:\n\n'mls. vivek Petra] and the same :s'%;a\u00a2;-grade "   '  f\n\n2.. The admitted facts izxdd\ufb02re  \n\nthe   engaged in the\nbusi\ufb01eseo\u00e9f trar\ufb01epdrte\ufb01ibn of goods; in the month ef\n\nJugxe _  desonsimment belonging to a\n\n   M\/s 'Vivek Petro ------a a registered\n\n  .3:ie\u00e9;1erf~:-;vrrde.r7'Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act,\n\n\u00a7.;Q?9.__"t1*e\u00a7i3eported consignment of a. product called\n\n .. Tzragdthe' from Mangalore; the contention of the\n\nA' "A._VVd'e1iartrr1er1t was the transit: parts which was required\n\n,,,_\\\\j\\\n\n":to be taken by the driver or the person incharge of\n\nthe vehicie at the check post of entry after\n\ncommencement of the transit was not handed over\n\n\n\n\\,_\n\n3\n\nat exit check post; therefore, a presumption under\nSubsection 4 of Section 3.8-B is available to hold\nthat the consimment did not move out of thestate\n\nbut wags mid within the Etate.  \n. In the present case, the tra.nsi.t.__\n\nissued by Kannur Cl1eckPosi:, Kannu.r_"'ar:1.d'\n\ncheekpost was Attibeie near  \n\ngoods were to reach the dos-tiliaeationt.Torrizs\ufb01ieie 'i:\u00a5:;ie~~r\n\nState of Karr1atakai.e., Po'i::\u00a7icherry'.V_  die oasis of'\n\nnonwreceipt of trvij.-&:4:_i"a,~_it  gtzttbele exit\n\nwit\ufb01in  time under the above said\nprovisiitzxgtotheggf 'trot  imposeri tars: but also levied\n\np,e\u00e9;}elty onathey goods transported. The contention\n\n  Vt:\u00a7_1 :e:\u00abap\ufb01ellant\/assessee was apart from the driver\n\n 2   \u00e9tlithorised representative of the consigner\n\n  Petra, B\u00e9anylore, who was incharge of the\n\n  'A ge_ode from the commencement of the journey till it\ntreeehed the destination and he was the one who\n\nH too}: not may the transit pass but was entrusted\n\nwith the duty of handing over the same at exit\n\ncheck post. Therefore, the owner of the transit\n\n\n\n,,\\\\'_f\\\n\n4\nvehicie was not liable to pay either the tax or the\n\npenalty imposed. However, the order dated\n\n24.12.2003<\/pre>\n
 by the Assessing Of\ufb02cer goes tr!”–Show<\/p>\n
that the said defence was not accepted._\u00e9eg\u00a7i:4’e:’ti\u00a7\u00a2’ey<\/p>\n
proceeded to impose tax of Rs.6,6’Mr\/h–H
\nanother Rs.\ufb01,674\/- as 1Je11aJt;:5y;.\u00bbAt\u00bbV  9<\/p>\n
before the appeliate a_.utheri.t\u00a7*–.. in  A’ <\/p>\n
130.232] 03-04.  ._\n<\/p>\n
4.The appeiiate aut?:…~eri_ty\u00b0–~i_1; thegvre\u00e9ent case<\/p>\n
after taking into  the assessment<\/p>\n
on   by the owner of the goods
\ni.e., Vti’vek _P\u00e9’\u00a3:r’iie,:’ lktiititrrgxalare, concluded that there<\/p>\n
were no einrasionv of any tax. Therefore, on<\/p>\n
\u00bbV:VaeVsur\u00a7_ar1ti\u00a7n.s; taxes cannot be levied when the<\/p>\n
H ‘- f5Lssegs7\u00ab\u00a7e%r able to establish. that there was ample<\/p>\n
er\u20acirIe”r3,cie4’.to prove the movement of goods outside<\/p>\n
 the ‘\ufb01ttate an\u00e9 not said within the State. He also
\n“”\u00a7r’et’Aers to the release of goods of naptha in favour of<\/p>\n
H the consigner and also ietters issued by the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commercial Tax Officer at’ Pondicherry. The<\/p>\n
assessing autherity had come to conciusien that all<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nthe entries effecteci by the consigaar did move out<\/p>\n
ef the State. Based on_ this finding, the apspe\ufb01ate<\/p>\n
authority aliowed the appeal in favour  the<\/p>\n
appellant, setting asi\u00e9e the orders of <\/p>\n
officer dated 24.12.2903.\n<\/p>\n
5. The revisional authoi;:;itt\ufb01f::to;>?\u00a3_ <\/p>\n
by way of suo\u00ab-metto :fe1;f_i:\u00absio\u00e9xx;_t’a’;:1d  <\/p>\n
cause nmtice to the   him to
\nexplain the con.tei”;.ts. of jg\ufb01\ufb01ce.  assessee
\nappearad before  jvtiatuthority and<\/p>\n
sub\ufb01iitetiiih\u00e9  fiowever, the revisional
\nauthteritty  of the appellate autharity<\/p>\n
as_in1pr\u00e9’p\u00a2_’r .a;r;a<itA'*\u00a7$z?ts.in\u00e91dicia1 to the interest of the<\/p>\n
  mjrentia' """  Ultimately the orders of the<\/p>\n
t  were revised and set–a.side. The<\/p>\n
'efders.t\u00a7f.V.aiissessment and penalty of the check post<\/p>\n
authg\u00e9ity were restored.\n<\/p>\n
6. Sec. 18$ :31′ the Kamataka Tax on Entry of<\/p>\n
Gen\u00e9s \ufb01at, 1979 reads as undar:\n<\/p>\n
\\ “~JrA\\<\/p>\n
:5
\nSee.I8-B\u00bb-Transit of goods by road
\nthrough the State and issue of transit<\/p>\n
pass:\n<\/p>\n
[1)Where a vehicie is carrying goo\u20aci:3s”‘.o<\/p>\n
taxable under this Act,<\/p>\n
(a) from any other piece outsiitiet  A
\nState and bound for anyglece c–utsi.'{i_e: ‘i1V.1\ufb01’_
\nState and passes throng}:  $ta_te’:A    ‘V j<\/p>\n
(by and which gooaseer\u00a2.mp\u00a2\u00a2t\u00a2aemtr’tt <\/p>\n
the State from en\u00a7f”‘~.plac.e .__outte’i\u00a7i\u00e9~._t”i:he’:<\/p>\n
country and such go_oV(_isV axje beingcarried
\nto any p1ace’o4_1\u00a7:tsid’e “$’t,e.i:e:_, the driver
\nor any other perso\ufb01\u00e9ine-cIierge_’.. of such<\/p>\n
vehic_l_e.q ejhalfzii  3 necessary<\/p>\n
 a:a~:r\u00a7d’..Vv__obt;ariVVt1 a transit pass in<\/p>\n
zdntplieete’fcottt=:\u00a7i-oing such particulars as<\/p>\n
mey_VttbeV’p_rescri$ed, from the officer~in-<\/p>\n
 charge ‘A the first oheckpost or barrier<\/p>\n
. L}vtfter\u00ab\u00ab_._his entry into the State or after<\/p>\n
  m\u00a2eex-mat has commenced from the<\/p>\n
 the case may be, or from the<\/p>\n
 Z ‘officer empowered for the purposes of<\/p>\n
eelbwsection (3) of section 28-A, upon<\/p>\n
interception of the goods vehicle after its
\nentry into the State or after movement<\/p>\n
has commenced as the case may he.)<\/p>\n
,.\\%X<\/p>\n
(2) The driver or the person-inw<\/p>\n
charge of the vehicle shall deliver within
\nthe stipulated time 3. copy of transit page<\/p>\n
obtained under sub section (1) to ”
\nofficer~–in~–cha.rge at last checkpo\ufb01.’
\nbarrier before his exit from the Statei.  tt<\/p>\n
{3)If for any re;e.so:tt,’Afjv <\/p>\n
carried in a goods Vehicle-..Aere, ai’te’.:’entry=–4 <\/p>\n
into the State (or eft,e’r._+eoIti1I\u00a7e31ee’:ne–:it”of:
\nmovement,  the_._..Vi\u00a7e.se~.,_v ma.y\u00ab.b_e)J\u00a7not
\nmoved out ofthe  the time
\nstipulated in   owner
\nof the ogms otvehtseleeoevshazz ‘tn;r:;:sh to the<\/p>\n
omce; \u00a2ogsterea 15. this behalf the<\/p>\n
reasons’  ‘4..__:e:.:.c.Er1 delay and other<\/p>\n
pettieolerstify  thereof and such officer<\/p>\n
‘ ‘V shall extfteizjdue enquiry extend the time of<\/p>\n
t  suitably amending the transit<\/p>\n
 fitovided that where the goods<\/p>\n
 x ‘eet1’\u00a7e\u00e9 by a vehicle me after their entry<\/p>\n
“ie.to the State, (or after commencement<\/p>\n
of movement, as the case may be)
\ntransported outside the State by any
\nother vehicle or conveyances, the extras of
\nproving that the goods have actually
\nmoved out of the State shall be on the<\/p>\n
 M ‘xfk<\/p>\n
awner of the vehicie who originally
\nbrought the goods into the State.<\/p>\n
(4)13 the driver or any other perscza
\ninwchaxge of the vehicle does not <\/p>\n
with sub-section(2), it shad! be  <\/p>\n
that the goods carried thereby _113.9_\u00e9e:.b\u00a7\u00e9_.{:exn1_<\/p>\n
sold within the State by the .q\ufb01rn\u00a3::   4
\nshall,
\nanything contain~\u00bb\u00a7_<i\u00ab–.._V in '7-,thisV <\/p>\n
vehicle and<\/p>\n
assessed to tax by t\ufb01'-a_V'tof\ufb01ceVt'~etin1iowte;red
\nin this behalf 'in_'_th\u00a2Atj$te:\u00a7\u00a2ribgAd manner.
\n(5) If the tbierfn\u00e9r.\u00a2'f::'th\u00a7tt'tra.1ii3ie fails to<\/p>\n
obtain the: tra;\ufb01sit:j.~aV5.3.':'tas tpar\u00e9xvictied un\u00e9er<\/p>\n
:V4t,5ll-.11'v'~StV.\u00a2t3';t\u00b0""\ufb01:"'5"-.t3t"t  fails to deliver the<\/p>\n
Same as._t}3tc*fi'\u00e9.\u00a7d"'.under subsection (2),<\/p>\n
A _ _ he tshatlltb\u00e9 liahi\u00e9 to pay by way of penalty
\n  sum a\ufb010t….exceeding (female the am-aunt<\/p>\n
.,;&fVt.a:x.l_eviabIe on the goo\u00e9s transported.<\/p>\n
T’    The amount of tax and the
\nv_petj\u00a7a:=i1ty ievied under this section. shall be<\/p>\n
~~ tn:-covered in the prescribed manner.<\/p>\n
Explanation: In case where a. vehicle
\nowned by a. person is hired for
\ntransportation of goods by some other<\/p>\n
perscn, the hirer of the vehicle shall for<\/p>\n
E3<\/p>\n
the purposes of this section be deemed to<\/p>\n
be the owner of the vehicle.)”\n<\/p>\n
‘2’. Presumption under sub-\u00absection (3) of sec.<\/p>\n
18-B of the Act Imdisputedly is a re\ufb01etteble<\/p>\n
presumption. Rebuttal presumption <\/p>\n
the person @inst whom the jmpug:3ed–:.1o.r:&’e:reeztieu <\/p>\n
to be passed by the checkqaoet <\/p>\n
to satisfy the authoritiee ‘t_hatVthere <\/p>\n
of payment of tax. If the \ufb01itention of  legislature<\/p>\n
were to be that irres.3.eeet’tva+t_\u00bbpef:it;ent of tax on the<\/p>\n
goods” et;ies’tior;V;*-‘ reba;itta.I presumption was
\navaiI’ebIe.’_ to  “then whether those goods<\/p>\n
were stxfbjeetedv-_to–. oa\u00a7ment of tax or not wouid be<\/p>\n
  A  Irrviei\ufb01 of the fact that rebuttal evidence<\/p>\n
    to be brought on record by the party in<\/p>\n
 woulci be open for him to establish that<\/p>\n
.  ‘State.\n<\/p>\n
Ax-\n<\/p>\n
in  TI’ was han\u00e9ed over at exit check post or<\/p>\n
A   the goods in question did move out of the<\/p>\n
Therefore, presumption of sale within the<\/p>\n
State would not be avaiiable to the revenue.<\/p>\n
:9\n<\/p>\n
8. In the present case, the contention of the<\/p>\n
appeilant corrsieteetiy was to the effect that along
\nwith the \u00e9river of the vehicle, the owner of the<\/p>\n
goods also traveller} because the consignor ei:ide.the<\/p>\n
consignee were one and the same. Theref\u00a7t\u00a7’,’V\u00bbI’<\/p>\n
entire formalities at the cheek <\/p>\n
after by the representative o\u00a7fA_ther4e5gAeor\u00a7s{\u00a7.’.’Renate<\/p>\n
driver who normally woeulgi be’._tliiterat’e <\/p>\n
know the details. Appmerrthf in this  the goe\u00e9e
\nha\u00e9 to move from V1;’\u00a7i:\u00a3i;r::ga’_ior–e,’te.__1\u00a7o1z(ticherry, outside<\/p>\n
the  oitheeetion 18—-B contemplates
\nthat  Vteet  by the owner meved out<\/p>\n
of_4:k,1e s\u00a3ate,’h’e  obtain transit pass, i.e. the<\/p>\n
 0\u00a3..theH;A5ere5en in charge of the vehicie. The<\/p>\n
  ‘Vt\u00a7;reett:m;\u00a7)”tieh’_i.under sub-sec. (3) as already stated is e.<\/p>\n
re.hut’te3:vt’f9resumption and the appellant relies upon<\/p>\n
 _ the “erect of the assessment at’ the coesignor er the<\/p>\n
 –.._”eeeeignee of the geods.\n<\/p>\n
9. It is also not disputed by the revenue that in
\nView ef the notice sent by the check~post offieer<\/p>\n
pertaining te M\/e. Vivek Petra, investigation was<\/p>\n
:1
\nmade with regard to the accounts of M15. Vivek<\/p>\n
Petro and even intelligence wing of the revenue also
\nmade a thorough investigation both at Marzgalore<\/p>\n
and Pondieherry, so far as the Business ,<\/p>\n
Vivek Petra. The material that was <\/p>\n
the asseeeing officer at the time of” of <\/p>\n
assessment indicates whetepverj’ T  :t’}1etf-ee.___y;we;’e<\/p>\n
imported, Le. a pro<i11cttV_c'a_1.ied–"i\ufb01epthetteaso <\/p>\n
sent to Pondhictzerry   'aecoe\ufb01nted at<\/p>\n
Pondicherry. It  evei:,_'b\u00a7f Central Excise<\/p>\n
_at 'Whatever duty that was
\npayat\ufb02e to Excise Department was also<\/p>\n
paid.. gs gaiexivthe'  of the assessing authority.<\/p>\n
. V.  _W!i:.ez%r\u00a7't*z:aIi'ce thevvtteoeeessing authority who took up the<\/p>\n
  proceedings as a part of the<\/p>\n
Ain_ves_tiget:ion into the missing of I or none<\/p>\n
 _ ecceutiting of'1"Ps. at exit check post, so far 3.5 mils.<\/p>\n
A' 'eAV_V"\u00a3'i*u;?ek Petra is concerned, it was satis\ufb01ed that all the<\/p>\n
goods that were imported which were meant te be<\/p>\n
sent ta Ponebieherry did reach I'ondichery and not<\/p>\n
even. a. single incident the reeeame was able to<\/p>\n
12<\/span>
\nestablish that it was sold within the State. He was<\/p>\n
justified in saying that the assesses i.e. M\/s. Vivek<\/p>\n
Petra had accounted all the goods tb-.et~..4_:”t3ere<\/p>\n
imported by them and nothing escaped <\/p>\n
In that View of the matter,_ yczlten <\/p>\n
rebnttable evidence, the apj3ellen.t’ re1iiee:”uj:;on5.”t’ti1e<\/p>\n
assessment or\u00e9er pertaiitieg   int’<\/p>\n
the absence of the Departr\u00a31en’t..nesteiaiieingi that the
\nconsignment in queetiorze\ufb01itluiitotuieove outside the
\nState, revieigoxtal iiot justified in
\nsett:ir:ig’t’e.ei:de  e’z%\u00a7.l’ersA”o\u00a7”‘tV:l1e appellate authority.
\nAs revisiorzai authority did not<\/p>\n
even, diecees  the rebuttabie evidence relied<\/p>\n
 the owi3eVr of the vehicle and whether the<\/p>\n
  “eseessing authority had reached finality<\/p>\n
‘er Vnotr.  ” 1<\/p>\n
.._1b.-\u00bb-” 03:1 the other hand, the learned<\/p>\n
 ..Crove’t’\ufb01meot Advocate is fair enough to bring to our<\/p>\n
“‘._tzio’i’Aice that the order of assessment pertaining to<\/p>\n
 = – 3. Viva}; Petro was the subject matter of sue mote<\/p>\n
revision under section 23., but the revisional<\/p>\n
I3<\/p>\n
authority con\ufb01rmed the said order of assessment of
\nthe assessing officer. When once the order of
\nassessment of M13. Vivek Petro has reached \ufb01nality,<\/p>\n
it would not be open to the Bepartment :th.at<\/p>\n
the presumption uncier sub–sec. (3) of<\/p>\n
still avaiiabie and the same 1s’hoot.;e\u00a7ug.\u00a2\u00a7\u00a7i;rrnrivsawt   r <\/p>\n
of the above discussion and <\/p>\n
opinion, the appeal des\u00e9rv,\u00a7s._tto
\nAccordingly, the appeal, i$.VVa1\u00a7oWeed setting aside<\/p>\n
the order of tiztf _Ar;\u00a7vi;$i.oi:a1.t’.A:”~authority dated<\/p>\n
  been recovered from
\nthe o{;2p\u00e9lla\ufb01t_tV\u00e9Vit2:\u00a7\u00e9’r:’:L:’iowards tax or penalty, the<\/p>\n
sa\u00a7:t1’eeo..sh2rV1″\u00a3’-\u00bb”refilntied within three months from<\/p>\n
   reoetot of a copy of the order.\n<\/p>\n
S\ufb01i *
\n\ufb01dga
\n;Sd7i~\u00bb
\ni\ufb01dge<\/p>\n
” V “oak<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D … vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAHGALGRE BATEB THIS THE 29″ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR3. JUSTICE MANJULA THE 1a:o1~z’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. A ‘1’.A..E.’i’. No.3 […]<\/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-859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D ... 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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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 Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D ... 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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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=\"2015-09-18T23:06:10+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=\"12 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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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 Deepak D Souza S\\\/O Sebastian D … vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-18T23:06:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1807,\"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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Deepak D Souza S\\\/O Sebastian D ... 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\":\"2015-09-18T23:06:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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 Deepak D Souza S\\\/O Sebastian D … 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 Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D ... 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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D ... 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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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":"2015-09-18T23:06:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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 Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D … vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-18T23:06:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1807,"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-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","name":"Sri Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D ... 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":"2015-09-18T23:06:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-so-sebastian-d-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 Deepak D Souza S\/O Sebastian D … 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\/859","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=859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}