TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er would submit that the goods were transported on the strength of Ext.P3 purchase bill. However, the finding in Ext.P4 notice is that the consignment was not accompanied by any documents. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with in intercepting the goods and issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the Act. 6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice, it is for him to file an appropriate objection before the 1st respondent, along with supporting materials. If any such objection is received, the 1st respondent shall forward the same along with the relevant file to the competent authority for adjudication, who shall pass appropriate orders, with notice to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the objection. 7. Pending adjudication, the goods detained pursuant to Ext.P4 notice shall be released to the petitioner, on the petitioner depositing 50% of the total amount demanded in Ext.P4 and furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent for the balance sum in the form of a simple bond with sureties." 3. Seeking review of the judgment dated 10.5.2016 in W.P.(C)No.17194 of 2016, to the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner is that, he had purchased pincoda wood from the 2nd respondent for purely domestic purpose for constructing doors and windows for his residential building. Though Ext.P3 purchase bill was produced at the time of inspection, it was without noticing the same that, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P4 notice. According to the petitioner, he is ready and willing to deposit one-half of the security deposit and execute bond with sureties for the remaining one-half of the security deposit and for the entire penalty amount and as such the judgment dated 10.5.2016 may be modified by permitting him to release the goods by making the deposit and executing bond as above. 9. In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others (1997 (8) SCC 715) the Apex Court held that, there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. Later, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000 (6) SCC 224) the Apex Court held that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Senior Government Pleader has also handed over the copy of the Writ Petition served in the office of the Advocate General. In the said copy of the Writ Petition, photocopy of the building plan produced as Ext.P1 at page No.5 does not contain the name of the owner of the proposed building (since photocopy was taken after masking that portion of the said plan with a piece of plain paper). However, another photocopy of that building plan is available on the backside of the purchase bill produced as Ext.P3 at page No.9, in which Sri.P.V.Somasekharan Nair, Priya Nivas, Pandiseril House, Vayalar P.O., Cherthala is shown as the owner of the proposed building. 14. In view of serious doubts as to the genuineness of Ext.P1 building plan, the Judges papers in W.P.(C)No.17194 of 2016 were called for along with the miscellaneous papers. On verification, it was found that the photocopy of the building plan produced as Ext.P1 in the 3rd set of the Writ Petition, which forms part of the miscellaneous papers, contain the name and address of the owner of the proposed building, which is conspicuously absent in the photocopy of the building plan produced as Ext.P1 in the 1st and 2nd set of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plan which he mistakenly took from the Xerox shop. However, no explanation is forthcoming from the deponent as to how the front elevation and floor plan of the building as shown in Ext.P1 building plan tally with the front elevation and brick masonry in Ext.P2 photographs produced along with the Writ Petition as the photographs of the building under construction. No explanation is also forthcoming from the deponent as to how such a building plan obtained by another person from the very same locality, i.e., Vayalar Village in Cherthala Taluk, happened to be substituted mistakenly at the Xerox shop. The deponent has also not explained the circumstances in which photocopy of the building plan produced as Ext.P1 in the 1st and 2nd set of the Writ Petition, happened to be photocopies taken after masking certain portion of that document with a piece of plain paper. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion is irresistible that, the averments made in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.254 of 2016 are totally devoid of truth and lacking in bonafides. 18. In paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition the petitioner has stated that, he is constructing a residential buildi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of fase statements and fabricating false evident in a Court of law. ....