Case Law Details
The Secretary to Govt. Department of Finance Vs M/s. K.S. Arcanut Stores (Karnataka High Court)
High Court states that, a close scrutiny of Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act indicates that if the owner come forward to pay the tax payable on such goods equal to 100% of the tax payable, then Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act is attracted. But when already the appellants have passed an order under Section 129 (1)(b) of the Act, by rejecting the documents tendered by the person in charge, until and unless that order is set aside, no order can be passed under Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act. Even for the order under challenge under Section 130 (1) of the Act some order ought to have been passed. The learned Single Judge without looking into the said provisions, by taking shelter under Section 168 of the Act gone into the circular issued on 31.12.2018 and passed the impugned order. Taking into consideration the above aspects of the matter, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of law. Firstly he has to say whether the orders passed by respondent – Government are in accordance with law or not. Then, if it is not in accordance with law, he has to set aside the same, then pass the suitable order. By keeping pending those orders, whatever order has been passed is not sustainable in law. It appears to be contrary to each other. The orders passed by the Government remain in tact and learned Single Judge passes order under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. In that light, it requires interference at the hands of this Court. If the matter is remitted to consider afresh all the issues which have been raised by both the parties, then thereafter to pass suitable order, it would meet the ends of justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.19098/2019 and 19722- 19723/2019 (T-RES).
2. We have heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri Aravind Kamath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Veena J. Kamath for the respondents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
