IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28710 of 2004(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAY YES TRADERS, KUNNAMUNDA JUNCTION, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.JAYACHANDRAN. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 5. THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SALES TAX CHECK-POST, ARYANKAVU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 DT.30.5.2004. P2 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER DOCUMENT NO.2 AND 3 DT.30.5.2004. P3 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF DELIVERY NOTE NOS.CTXM 057051 & DCTT 206870 DT.30.5.2004. P4: TRUE COPY OF FORM 28 DECLARATION DT.11.5.2004. P5: TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.29 DT.11.5.2004. P6: .DO. NO.2 DT.30.5.2004. P7: TRUE COPY OF FORM 27B. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.1.9.2004. P9: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.16547/04 DT.3.6.2004. P10: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT.15.7.2004. P11 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF LETTERS DT.25.6.2004 & 10.7.2004. P12: TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTE DT.13.8.2004. P13: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY R3 DT.5.6.2004. P14: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA DT.6.4.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28710 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order wherunder for the offence of smuggling rubber out of the State without payment of tax, the Adjudicating Officer has demanded penalty at five times the amount of tax under two heads which is the scheme of compounding provided under the Act. I heard Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. On going through Ext.P8 and after hearing counsel appearing for both sides, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings on attempt to smuggle goods through Check Post proved by the department. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, there is no scope for interference because the amount demanded is under the compounding scheme and the alternative for the department was to recover cost of the rubber and value of the lorry released under the 2 orders of this court. In fact, the officer has limited penalty to the extent secured by this court under the judgment referred to therein. The W.P. is accordingly disposed of upholding Ext.P8. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms