9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1345 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReview application - Detention of goods with vehicle - Invocation of Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act - detention on the ground 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 - Held that - 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. There was a calculated attempt on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court in W.P.(C)No.17194 of 2016 with false statements. The petitioner 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) Rs. 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Conditions imposed for the release of detained goods. 3. Allegations of false statements and fabricated documents by the petitioner. 4. Scope and limitations of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Ext.P4 Notice: The petitioner challenged the Ext.P4 notice issued by the Intelligence Officer under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which demanded a security deposit and penalty for the transportation of goods without proper documentation. The Court found that the notice was valid as the consignment was intercepted without accompanying documents, justifying the action taken by the respondent. 2. Conditions for Release of Detained Goods: The initial judgment required the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demanded amount and furnish security for the balance to release the detained goods. The petitioner sought a review of this condition, arguing that he was willing to deposit one-half of the security deposit and execute a bond for the remaining amount. The Court maintained that the original conditions were appropriate and did not warrant modification. 3. Allegations of False Statements and Fabricated Documents: The Court noted serious discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner, including the building plan and permit. It was revealed that the building plan submitted was not in the petitioner’s name and that the petitioner did not have a valid building permit. The Court concluded that the petitioner had made false statements and submitted fabricated documents, aiming to mislead the Court. Consequently, the Review Petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. 4. Scope and Limitations of the Power of Review: The Court discussed the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The Court cited several precedents, including Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and Lily Thomas v. Union of India, to underline that the grounds raised by the petitioner did not meet the criteria for review. The petitioner’s remedy lay in filing an intra-court appeal rather than a review petition. Conclusion: The Review Petition was dismissed on grounds of misuse of judicial process, submission of false documents, and failure to meet the criteria for review. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, with provisions for recovery through revenue proceedings if unpaid.
|
