Skip to content


inder Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCustoms;Criminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 211 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC311; 1980CriLJ328; (1979)4SCC484; 1979(11)LC284a(SC)
ActsCustoms Act, 1962 - Sections 135; Gold Control Act, 1968 - Sections 85
Appellantinder
RespondentState of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
- karnataka value added tax act, 2003.[k.a. no. 32/2004]. section 1: [ s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj] concept & scope held, charges paid towards evolution of prototype conceptual design, on which service tax is leviable, cannot be taxed under value added tax act. payments of service tax as also the vat are mutually exclusive. therefore, they should be held to be applicable having regard to the respective parameters of service tax and the sales tax as envisaged in a composite contract as contradistinguished from an indivisible contract. in the instant case the appellant is an advertising agency. it provides for advertisement services. it creates original concept and design advertising material for their clients and design brochures, annual reports etc. the orders received by it to provide..........the appellant has been convicted under section 135(b) of customs act, 1962 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 2,000/-. he has also been convicted under section 85 (ii) of the gold control act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 2,000/-. the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. it appears that the appellant has already spent about a month in jail & after a lapse of ten years it does not appeal to be conducive to the ends of justice to send the appellant back to jail. in these circumstances, therefore, while upholding the convictions of the appellant, we would reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served. in lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of rs. 15,000/ under each.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 135(b) of Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also been convicted under Section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. It appears that the appellant has already spent about a month in jail & after a lapse of ten years it does not appeal to be conducive to the ends of justice to send the appellant back to jail. In these circumstances, therefore, while upholding the convictions of the appellant, we would reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served. In lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs. 15,000/ under each count, total being Rs. 30,000/ , in default six months rigorous imprisonment on each count. The appellant is allowed to pay Rs. 10,000/- with a month from today and the balance of the amount to be paid within six months from today. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //