Whenever goods are detained u/s 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, the same can be released against the surety bond or a bank guarantee and either of the one can be furnished and the same has to be accepted.
Recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 25000 on an officer for not releasing the goods detained u/s 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, against a personal surety bond. The court held that such cost shall be recovered from the officer. I find this judgement of the Hon'ble High Court as very important one hence sharing herebelow for the benefit of all concerneds:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab....
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The only grouse raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though it is provided for under the provisions of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 that the goods, if detained, are to be released on furnishing of surety
but the same have not been released. Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the goods of the petitioner shall be released on furnishing surety.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to earlier orders passed by this court in Varinder Kumar & Co., Khanna and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 16 PHT 486 (P&H); M/s, Rachna Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh v. State of Punjab and another, (2000) 15 PHT 460 (P&H) and Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.State of Punjab and others, (2007) 30 PHT 344 (P&H), submitted that similar orders are being passed by the same officer causing unnecessary harassment to the dealers and resulting in creation of avoidable litigation.
Earlier also, in Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the same officer had been burdened with costs of ` 10,000/- to be recovered from him personally. Considering the fact that he has still not corrected his way
of working, costs be imposed upon him.
The stand of learned counsel for the State was that the officer was working in the best interest of the State and is one of the honest officers.
After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, considering the conduct of the officer, who dealt with the case of the petitioner in the manner which was indefeasible and the State had to ultimately concede the relief prayed for, the officer deserves to be burdened with costs of 25,000/-. The amount shall initially be paid by the State, however, the same shall be recovered from the officer.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Acting Chief Justice
12.8.2011
Recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 25000 on an officer for not releasing the goods detained u/s 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, against a personal surety bond. The court held that such cost shall be recovered from the officer. I find this judgement of the Hon'ble High Court as very important one hence sharing herebelow for the benefit of all concerneds:
C.W.P. NO. 14386 of 2011 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14386 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.8.2011
M/s Azad Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
..Petitioner
v.
The State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14386 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.8.2011
M/s Azad Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
..Petitioner
v.
The State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The only grouse raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though it is provided for under the provisions of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 that the goods, if detained, are to be released on furnishing of surety
but the same have not been released. Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the goods of the petitioner shall be released on furnishing surety.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to earlier orders passed by this court in Varinder Kumar & Co., Khanna and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 16 PHT 486 (P&H); M/s, Rachna Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh v. State of Punjab and another, (2000) 15 PHT 460 (P&H) and Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.State of Punjab and others, (2007) 30 PHT 344 (P&H), submitted that similar orders are being passed by the same officer causing unnecessary harassment to the dealers and resulting in creation of avoidable litigation.
Earlier also, in Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the same officer had been burdened with costs of ` 10,000/- to be recovered from him personally. Considering the fact that he has still not corrected his way
of working, costs be imposed upon him.
The stand of learned counsel for the State was that the officer was working in the best interest of the State and is one of the honest officers.
After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, considering the conduct of the officer, who dealt with the case of the petitioner in the manner which was indefeasible and the State had to ultimately concede the relief prayed for, the officer deserves to be burdened with costs of 25,000/-. The amount shall initially be paid by the State, however, the same shall be recovered from the officer.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Acting Chief Justice
12.8.2011
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment