9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1091 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPetition seeking direction to the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab to allow the petitioner to enter its shop after breaking open the seal put thereon by the Department Held that - After due consideration of the rival stands, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the stand taken in the affidavit of Mr. Rishi Pal Singh is false. The case of the petitioner is that a team of the Department visited the petitioner s premises on September 13, 2010 and illegally sealed the same. It is not disputed that the said team had visited the premises but sealing has been denied. Proceedings at the time of visit have not been produced. There is no reason for the petitioner to falsely allege sealing which is also shown in the photograph. It is not the case of the AETC that the petitioner has any animus against him. Thus, prima facie, it has to be held that sealing of the premises was by or at the instance of the Department. It is further clear that order on representation purporting to be dated October 21, 2010 was passed much later than the said date and has been ante-dated and the entry in the despatch register dated October 21, 2010 has been forged.
Issues:
Petition seeking direction to allow entry to shop after seal by Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab. Analysis: The petitioner, registered under Punjab VAT Act, had its premises sealed by Department officials in absence of the proprietor. Despite making representations, no decision was taken, leading to the filing of a petition. The court directed the Excise and Taxation Officer to allow the petitioner to open the shop, but the Department denied sealing the premises. The court found discrepancies in the Department's actions, including antedating of orders, forged entries, and false statements by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC). The court held that the sealing was done by or at the instance of the Department, and the AETC's actions constituted cognizable offenses. Consequently, the court directed the SSP Ludhiana to register a criminal case and conduct an investigation within three months. The observations made were prima facie and would not affect the final conclusion of the investigation or trial. The petition was disposed of with these directions for further legal action.
|
