1992 (8) TMI 259 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file counter-affidavit within the stipulated time periods.
2. Petitioner's prayer for three reliefs: quashing of assessment notices, return of seized documents, and prohibition on assessment proceedings.
3. Compliance with provisions of sub-section (3-A) of section 13 of the Act regarding retention of seized documents.
4. Uncontroverted assertion by the petitioner regarding non-compliance with conditions precedent for retention of seized documents.
5. Court's decision on the illegality of retaining seized documents beyond the specified period.
6. Directions given to return seized documents and halt assessment proceedings.

The judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court involved the failure of the respondents to file a counter-affidavit within the granted time periods, leading the court to accept the uncontroverted averments made by the petitioner. The petitioner sought three reliefs, with the court focusing on the return of seized documents and the prohibition on assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the retention of seized documents was in violation of sub-section (3-A) of section 13 of the Act, as specific conditions for retention were not met. These conditions included recording reasons in writing and obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner of Sales Tax within 90 days. The court emphasized that failure to satisfy these conditions rendered the retention of documents beyond 90 days invalid. The petitioner's assertion regarding non-compliance with these conditions remained unchallenged by the respondents, leading the court to declare the retention of seized documents illegal and ordering their return.

In its decision, the court directed the Sales Tax Officer to return the seized books of account, documents, and diary within two months from the date of the judgment. Furthermore, the court instructed the Sales Tax Officer not to proceed with the assessment proceedings for the relevant years for a period of three months. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with statutory provisions and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to have the seized documents returned due to the failure to meet the prescribed conditions for retention. Ultimately, the petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the significance of adherence to legal requirements in such matters.