Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
ACE Logistics – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of penalty notice (Para 2) |
| 2. willingness required for compounding offenses (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. no alternative remedy available (Para 5) |
| 4. requirement of consent for compounding (Para 6) |
| 5. no interference with taxation penalty (Para 7) |
| 6. petition allowed, notice quashed (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the Confiscation Notice being Notice Memo No. SO2/2022 – 216/2022 dated 16.11.2022 to the extent the respondent No.2 has imposed a penalty of Rs.12,99,650/- under the provisions of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 in the form of compounding amount.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trailer bearing Registration No. NL 01AB 2179 belonging to the petitioner firm, loaded with HR Coil was plying under a National Permit from Jamshedpur, Jharkhand to Sambalpur, Odisha for the purpose of fulfilling a consignment which the petitioner firm was entrusted with by M/s Tata Steel Limited vide Consignment Note No.SP1375574085 dated 04.11.2022 for delivering the said goods co
Consent of the accused is essential for compounding offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, as unilateral imposition is unauthorized and jurisdictionally invalid.
The Superintendent of Taxes had jurisdiction to compound an offence under the Assam VAT Act based on proper delegations, and the admission of offence by the petitioner affirmed the validity of the co....
The Superintendent of Taxes was authorized to compound an offence under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, despite the petitioner's claims to the contrary.
respondent authorities have failed to justify the reason for seizure of the truck in question. When the respondent authorities have failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2017, ....
The Excise Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to compound offences under Section 75 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, as authority is reserved for the Collector or specific Excise Officers.
Violation of principles of natural justice and lack of appointment of taxing officers influenced the court's decision to release the vehicle without forcing payment of the tax amount.
Officials are not liable for corruption charges regarding compounding offences if actions were taken under regulations prior to the fixed minimum fee introduction. Notifications under repealed Acts r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
