TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has even produced bogus documents along with the Writ Petition and also in this Review Petition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dismiss this Review Petition after imposing a cost of 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) ₹ on the petitioner, which shall be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide free legal service to the weaker sections of the society. Petition dismissed. - R.P.No.381 of 2016 in W.P.(C.)No.17194 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2016 - Anil K. Narendran J. P. Shanes Methar for the petitioner C. K. Govind, Government Pleader, for the respondents ORDER This Review Petition arises out of the judgment dated 10.5.2016 in W.P.(C)No.17194 of 2016. The said Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner herein seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notice dated 2.5.2016 issued by Intelligence Officer, Squad No.II, Commercial Taxes Department, Tirur, the 1st respondent herein, under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act') and for a writ of mandamus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent, who is a registered dealer both under the KVAT Act and the CST Act. On transportation, the goods were intercepted by the 1st respondent at Tirur, resulting in issuance of Ext.P4 notice dated 2.5.2016 under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, requiring the petitioner to remit a sum of ₹2,03,000/- (₹1,01,500/- as security deposit and ₹1,01,500/- as penalty) in lieu of detention. The said notice was under challenge in W.P.(C) No.17194 of 2016. 6. The reasons stated in Ext.P4 notice for invoking the provisions under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act were that, the vehicle was seen parked in front/premises of Akbar Saw Mill, Tirur; and that no documents were produced by the driver of the vehicle for transportation of the goods, i.e., imported pincoda. In the said circumstances, the 1st respondent estimated the value of the goods at 3,50,000/- and demanded security ₹ deposit and penalty. 7. In the judgment dated 10.5.2016, after referring to the decision of this Court in Interfield Laboratories v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KLT 945) , it was held that the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with in intercepting the goods for the reasons stated in Ext.P4 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p (4) SCC 595) and the subsequent decisions in Green View Tea Industries v. Collector (2004 (4) SCC 122) and in Board of control for Cricket in India (referred to supra), the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of review the Apex Court or the High Court can reopen the case and rehear the entire matter. But, whilst exercising such power the Court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code as well as the rules framed by the High Courts and the Apex Court and that the limits within which the Courts can exercise the powers of review have been well settled in a catena of judgments. 12. In that view of the matter, the grounds raised in this Review Petition are not available to the petitioner in an application for review filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed by this Court in the judgment dated 10.5.2016 in W.P. (C)No.17194 of 2016 for releasing the goods under detention, his remedy is to file an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 and not a Review Petition under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 2 to 4 of the said affidavit read thus; 2 . The above writ petition was filed seeking release of consignment with was detained by the tax authorities alleging invasion of tax. 3. It is submitted that, for being produced as an exhibit, Ext.P1 in the memorandum of writ petition, the counsel had given me a plan of the building. But the same happened to be substituted with a plan which I mistakenly took from the Xerox shop. 4 . The said mistake was not intentional and I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused to this Court and I seek apology in the matter. I also pray that further action in the matter may be dropped. 16. As I have already noticed, the photocopy of the building plan produced as Ext.P1 in the 3rd set of the Writ Petition contains the name and address of the owner of the proposed building, which is conspicuously absent in the photocopy of the building plan produced as Ext.P1 in the 1st and 2nd set of the Writ Petition, since those photocopies were taken after masking that portion of the building plan with a piece of plain paper. Further, the front elevation and floor plan of the building as shown in the building plan now produced along with I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 757) , the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law. The relevant portion of paragraph 38 of the said verdict reads as follows : 38 . Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to candalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any Court : (2) prejudice or interfere or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) Interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceeding; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. 20. In Muthu Karuppan V. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (2011 (6) SCC 496) the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Ltd. (2016 (1) SCALE 264) , the Apex Court observed that though the observation in Muthu Karuppan's case (supra) was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 21. In the instant case, as I have already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
