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

2016 (6) TMI 1290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eased and take custody of the same - penalty reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- - On remittance of the said amount, the respondent shall release the excavator to the petitioner within a further period of ten days of such remittance - petition allowed in part. - W.P.C.No.22728 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - A.M. Shaffique, J. Harisankar V. Menon, Smt. Meera V. Menon and Mahesh V. Menon for the petitioner. R. Renjith, Government Pleader, for the respondents. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6, an order passed by the Intelligence Officer, by which penalty had been imposed on the petitioner calling upon him to remit an amount of ₹ 7,08,470/-. Petitioner is also informed that if the amount is not d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. The State preferred O.T (Rev) No.25/2014 before this Court and this Court, having set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, remitted the matter back to the Intelligence Officer to consider the evidence adduced in the matter and to take a proper decision. Pursuant to the same, the Intelligence Officer again passed Ext.P6 order imposing penalty of ₹ 7,08,470/-. The Intelligence Officer observed that though an agreement was produced, it was noticed that the stamp paper was purchased only on 03/07/2013, but the date of agreement was shown as 25/06/2013. It was observed that this arrangement was made to meet the allegations raised in Form No.17A. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no reason for the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner, having not availed of the appellate remedy, there is no reason why this Court should exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to consider the first contention urged on behalf of the learned Government Pleader. This writ petition was admitted as early as on 03/09/2014 and there was an interim direction that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner shall not be sold. Having regard to the fact that the matter was admitted and pending before this Court for the last about two years, there is no reason why the petitioner should be asked to avail of the appellate remedy, at this stage of the proce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eption, silence on the part of owner till the matter was taken up for enquiry regarding the agreement between him and Mr.M.Kumar and coming up with such an agreement without supporting documents to confirm that Mr.M.Kumar S/o. Muniappan had any quarry contract which was transferred to Mr.Mari by virtue of agreement dated 25.06.2013, we are of the opinion, there is no satisfactory material placed on behalf of the owner before the enquiry officer. 8. The main reason for imposing penalty is based on the agreement dated 25/06/2013. True that there is an apparent conflict between the date of purchase of stamp paper and the date of agreement. In other words, it could be stated that the agreement is pre-dated. Assuming in a case where the agr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xt.P3, on account of the fact that he did not have the money to pay for it. If it was a case of sale, definitely it is probable that the purchaser would have taken steps for releasing the vehicle even by depositing atleast part of the amount or even challenge the detention order during the relevant time. All these facts were pertinent and relevant for considering the question of detention of a vehicle. Perusal of Ext.P6 order does not disclose that such a consideration has been made by the Intelligence Officer. Under Section 47(6), double the amount of tax is the maximum amount that can be imposed on a person who is attempting to evade tax. In the present case, if the fact of hiring of vehicle is admitted, then the question of payment of ta .....

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