2011 (5) TMI 871 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether denial of copies of the preliminary verification report in respect of the seized books of accounts and copies of the seized documents will render the impugned proceeding vitiated even when the statutory rules laying down the procedure for holding seizure proceedings are silent in this behalf or not? Held that - Unable to say that any prejudice is being caused to the appellant by the non-supply of those documents. All that he stated in that letter is that the documents were essential for their audit purpose and for their regular day-to-day business work as otherwise their business was being greatly affected he did not whisper any statement about his inability to reply to the impugned notice dated November 8, 2001 issued by respondent 4 due to non-supply of those documents. The appellant has thus failed to place any facts record to substantiate his case that any prejudice, not to speak of substantial prejudice, is being caused to him for non-supply of those document. Even if we assume that rules of natural justice have been violated by the respondent authorities for the non-supply of the copies of the preliminary verification report and the seized documents, on the findings so reached by us, we do not think that any prejudice, ipso facto, could possibly be caused to the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of documents under section 44(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.
2. Retention of seized documents beyond the prescribed period of 120 days.
3. Issuance of notice requiring the appellant to appear and produce account books.
4. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of preliminary verification report and photocopies of seized documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of Documents:
The appellant contended that the seizure of documents was not based on the requisite satisfaction of the seizing authority as required by the Sales Tax Act. The respondents argued that the seizure was justified as the appellant was dealing in taxable goods not covered by his registration, leading to tax evasion. The court noted that the seizure was conducted under section 44(1) of the Sales Tax Act and was not a search operation requiring compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Retention of Seized Documents Beyond 120 Days:
The appellant argued that the retention of seized documents beyond 120 days without recording reasons and obtaining the Commissioner's approval was illegal. The respondents countered that the Commissioner had accorded approval for the retention on February 11, 2002. The court found that the respondents had complied with the necessary legal requirements for retaining the documents beyond the prescribed period.

3. Issuance of Notice Requiring Appearance and Production of Account Books:
The appellant received a notice on November 8, 2001, indicating tax evasion and requiring him to produce relevant books of accounts. The appellant requested the release of seized documents or their photocopies to prepare his accounts. The respondents argued that the appellant was required to produce the books of accounts before the seizure and that returning the documents could enable him to rectify anomalies. The court upheld the issuance of the notice, finding no procedural irregularities.

4. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant's counsel focused on the alleged violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of the preliminary verification report and photocopies of the seized documents. The respondents argued that there was no provision under the Sales Tax Act for supplying such documents. The court referred to the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that material used against a person must be disclosed to them. However, the court also noted that not every violation of natural justice rules invalidates proceedings unless prejudice is proven.

The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice caused by the non-supply of the documents. The appellant's letter dated December 3, 2001, requesting the documents for audit and business purposes, did not indicate an inability to respond to the notice. The court concluded that even if there was a violation of natural justice, no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The seizure and retention of documents were lawful, the notice was properly issued, and the alleged violation of natural justice did not cause any prejudice to the appellant. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

← Previous Next →