1991 (2) TMI 402 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure order based on lack of reasons for search, absence of notice under section 28(1) of the Act, validity of reasons for search in seizure order, legality of mahazar, compliance with section 165, Cr. P.C., officer passing seizure order not conducting preliminary investigation, interpretation of "so far as may be" in section 28(2)(ii) of the Act, reliance on case law regarding non-compliance with section 165, Cr. P.C., interpretation of "such person" in section 28, involvement of multiple officers in investigation, contravention of mandatory requirements of section 165, Cr. P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, challenged the seizure order issued by the Intelligence Wing of the Commercial Tax Department, North Zone, Belgaum. The main grounds included the lack of reasons for the search, absence of notice under section 28(1) of the Act, invalid reasons for search in the seizure order, and alleged illegality in the mahazar. The respondents justified the search and seizure, stating that preliminary investigation revealed suppression of production figures and evasion of tax, leading to the seizure under section 28(3) of the Act.

The petitioner argued that the seizure order was not in compliance with section 165, Cr. P.C., as the officer passing the order was different from the one conducting the preliminary investigation. However, the court found substantial compliance with the requirements, as multiple officers were involved in the investigation, search, and seizure process. The court examined the scope of "so far as may be" in the proviso to section 28(2)(ii) of the Act and rejected the petitioner's contention of violation of section 165, Cr. P.C.

The court referenced case law to support the contention that non-compliance with section 165, Cr. P.C., does not necessarily vitiate the seizure. Additionally, the court discussed the interpretation of "such person" in section 28 and cited relevant decisions. It was observed that all three CTOs involved in the investigation participated actively, justifying the involvement of multiple officers in the seizure process. The court concluded that there was no contravention of mandatory requirements of section 165, Cr. P.C., and dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure order.