2026 (1) TMI 1500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) The instant writ appeal is filed by the State, impugning the interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 35233/2024. The contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed in W.P. No. 35233/2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ appeal. 2. Sri. Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate [AGA] appearing for the appellant-State, submits that the goods and vehicle of the respondent were confiscated and that the tax and penalty were quantified at Rs.36,64,104/-. Learned AGA submits that the tax and penalty in respect of the goods amount to Rs.30,62,800/- and Rs.6,01,304/- i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act, the requirement would have been to deposit 20% of the disputed tax in addition to the amount already deposited under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the Act, while preferring an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Hence, learned counsel submits that furnishing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would sufficiently meet the requirement of sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the Act. 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Authorities, by failing to release the vehicle in compliance with the impugned order, have committed disobedience thereof and have, consequently, rendered themselves liable for contempt. 4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty of Rs.6,01,304/- have been levied. 9. The order of the learned Single Judge directing release of the vehicle in question, subject to the respondent furnishing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, is not in strict conformity with subsection (8) of Section 112 of the Act. However, we notice that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would substantially meet the requirement of 30% as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the Act. 10. Having regard to the pendency of the larger issue in the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to interfere with the interim order only to the limited extent of modifying the direction by requiring the respondent/petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- b....