Karnataka High Court
Javeed Asgar S/O H A Asgar vs The Asst Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 10 September, 2008
Bench: Deepak Verma, B. Sreenivase Gowda
" "gum.
IE THE HIGH coma': or KARNATAKA AT A'
mmn Tms mm 19" DAY or SEPTEMBER 'éitjéfs-5 4
PRESEN'!f_......__ M % V
THE momma MR. Jusrzcianrggéak»
THE Howam MR. .zusTxc§:EM.,:;P.EuE1§iv£§$ig
wnrr APPEAi;«...1iiD,2-;$0£§§'A 25:04» (T-AIT)
BETWEEN: "T
S:é.JaveedVAsga1';._ _
Aged ahout $51 Ytzétxs, ' é _
Sic Sri. H;.A..e=.sgar,' ' '-
Kazradigandi Group' {:yf'E.$tafi:,__ " " 2 *"
A1durPost, ._ % _ I " ,
CHIKMA§ALUI<. _ .. APPELLANT.
Sv.Part£ias.s3.ra'thi, Aziv.)
vi
-n3n.n--u.n--5--wr
Tfie T' sf
Agxicugiiwxial inflame-tax,
;V--.............
§H!KMA.¢.3A.L "rfi. .. REBPOKDENT.
" .. £ S}3it.S.Sujatha, Govt. Adv.)
4¢_,«k_ a&__*__~k____7k_"k____a&
This Writ Appeal is fikzszi under Section 4 of the Kanlataka
T Act, praying to set aside the Order passeé in the Writ
F " Pétition M33935; 2002 dated 15.02.2004.
This Writ Appea}. coming on for Preliminary He'-rarigng this day,
DEEPAK VERMA J., delivered the following:
lesser extent and acemdingly paid }.§g,V33,70£3]'¥
Sinca he had cammitted default in v1':say:;it:1 it <5f_c£$1j%i*pgi§ition "
fees, he was Calleé upen as to véi13#._Vact:£b1: éfi VCGi§v:ii.$1A§T:1.'}3:3,£¥.V¥}€2€1 undmf
Section 42(1) of the Act may not be t"
5. In response to the séiixfi,' '}1éL. he is enclosing
herc:w§.t11 a cheque f-_;,}'1' made, but there
was my jus'a'fi<;_=afi'cm §}¢flQ1f§(' under Section 42(1) 01" the
Act as 115 --th:::a.{:§.o111;t.:ilen2anded.
5. The mier dated 21.08.2002 levied
penalty of Rs:I9%,845['g belateci payment Qf Rs.33,'70§/~.
'E'.t;is o_2fCierE suulijec-t..--~:z3.attcr of chaiienge before the iezamed
VSi;t::'g1§'J13§igc b}'§"' a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 22? of
V the ::';$:;:st::§1i:1§:i;;'A}::f India, which has bean dismissed with the
eiabaraféz .x*eé:sdi§§, recorded by ieaiztxeci Single Judge.
'7. There is no dispute before us that
centemplated to be deposited as coztepgsition fee' wfieieb 'i1o*£:"pai_d "or
deposited by the appeiiant 0:; er hefere 'I't VzeuSA::V*9eid
oniy after issuance of notice to the-appeiiaef fry the
20.08.2002, i.e., aimost after a deleiyef two '
8. Section 42(1)(ii) of V:eAet"11La:s§':1;IiL1evrgit§:1:e a change. In place of the words 'a penaity', 'been substituted by Act No.5] 200 s;1§mé5=,M ii;ié1t the word 'interest' inserted by thiszx be and shall be deemed always to have been.._eubs;tit1ite§;1', thereby that as if it continues in the sfué.1':::1f£e tight {feel the inception. Judge was of the epixfion that when for the pieveiei-1e« time of composition, appeilant had disclosed V iihat wee .c3v:*i1e;:' to the extent of 49 acres and 23 guntas, then foe 'hf? slieeequent year without there being any deeumentary '§1is regarfi, he eouid not have said 02: claimed that he was VT Izetekte owner ef the }.and to the extefit 0f 49 acres and 23 gtmtas, If was for the appeiiam. to have proved before the authority eeueereed that ever: 'since last year, he has transferred, eiienated, gifted er 301:3 yart ef the 13111:}. 'E'hue the tetra} fiend heiding ef 'she "93 that has been considered by the S'{1§}I'€JLI1€ Ceurt: {Q the imposition of penalty if there is sta.3;~ef_e. Court against such recovery. The Apex Iiéaeixeid "
period of stay, assessee cannot be__§$aj§i 1:5 'bee ,;iuI'i'r:g that period no penalty Caz} be .117' case, there has not been any stay the appellant by any Court. Thus as of the aforesaid case do not applflto caee V'
12. In I1:;:tSt;e},A{,':j;;=eve *of'*t1je cofi§éeied opinion that the appml being deveiti eesemes to be dismissed, which we a<:c<:§id_ii1g1y {:29 13;. & A;}i§)e2§i= is"}:1«e1*e13y iiiéfiissed, him}: with 110 order as ta costs Sd/-
Fudge 3d/an Iudgé