Case Law Details
Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Office (Kerala High Court)
We cannot accept the argument of the appellant for the reason that Section 129(1) makes it adequately clear that any person who is interested in the goods shall be liable under Section 129(1)(b). Particularly, a reading of Section 129(6) would indicate that where a person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods, fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-Section (1) within 14 days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130. This would undoubtedly indicate action not only against the goods, but also against the transporter.
The non-obstante clause in Section 129 indicate that neither Section 126, nor the general provision of penalty under Section 125, or Section 122 would apply in cases where Section 129 is attracted. Section 126 refers to ‘minor breaches’. Explanation(a) to section 126 states that a breach shall be considered a ‘minor breach’, if the amount of tax involved is less than five thousand rupees. Hence for that reason alone, Section 126 is not attracted in the instant case.
The learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition refusing to find any infirmity in Exts.P5 to P7 notices and therefore, the Writ Appeal is without any merits and requires to be dismissed, which we do. No order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
