Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (10) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue of 11 bags of rice seized from him by the defendants together with interest, other expenses and also damages. The plaintiff is a dealer in rice and is having a valid foodgrains licence. His place of business is at Palasa in Srikakulam District. He sold 11 bags of rice on 7th February, 1978 to a dealer at Vizianagaram and the same was being transported from Palasa to Vizianagaram through M/s. Bharat Motor Parcel Service with necessary documents, viz., credit bill and way-bill. On the way, it appears, that the third defendantCommercial Tax Officer (Check Post) detained the stock and got unloaded it on the grounds that the same is not having a permit from the Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam and levy-free certificate issued by the Di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount or any portion thereof? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed and if so, at what rate and for what period? (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in law? (4) Whether there is a notice under section 80, C.P.C., prior to the suit and if so, it is valid? After trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with interest as claimed; that the suit is maintainable and that the notice under section 80, C.P.C., is valid and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for as against D-1 and D-2. Thereupon, the defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal in A.S. No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. The learned Subordina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e goods carried, whether such sale or purchase is liable to tax under this Act, and if so- (a) whether such tax has been paid; or (b) whether the sale or purchase of the goods carried has, for the purpose of payment of tax under this Act, been properly accounted for in the bills of sale, or delivery notes or such other documents as may be prescribed." Therefore, we see from the above section of the Act the check post officer can detain the goods vehicle only for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been sale or purchase of the goods carried and in case there was sale or purchase of the goods carried, whether such sale or purchase is liable to tax under this Act and if so such tax has been paid. As we have seen from the evidence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learly reveal that the check post officer has acted mala fide in detaining the goods in spite of producing the proceedings, exhibit A-6, by the dealer before him. The learned Government Pleader argued that the superior officer D-2 passed the order under exhibit B-22 to the effect directing the check post authorities to release the goods either on accepting the security or detention of so much quantity of rice equivalent to the tax payable and in view of this order by D-2, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no substance in this argument. It must be seen that this order has been passed by D-2 after a lapse of 8 months. What is more is that this order has been passed after the suit notice is served on him and this o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ings to set aside or modify, or question the validity of any assessment, order or decision made or passed by any officer or authority under the Act or any rules made thereunder. In the case before us, we are not concerned with the modification or question the orders passed by any authority. But we are only concerned with mala fide action on the part of the defendant-check post officer in the case. That being the case, I am not in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, I do not see any substantial question of law involved in this case which would warrant upsetting the judgment of the two lower courts. Thus, there are no merits in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates