2014 (8) TMI 442 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of records - Non production of documents - Held that - Court is of the view that the position requires to be considered in the light of the relevant provisions of law, by the competent authority. This is not a fit case to call for interference invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P5, interference is declined - It is open for the petitioner to approach the departmental authorities to get back the documents and in case any such petition is filed, the same shall be considered and necessary orders shall be passed, effecting return of the documents at the earliest. The petitioner shall produce the books of accounts as sought by the second respondent on the relevant date to be informed by the second respondent forthwith and after verification, the seized records shall be returned to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to penalty order (Ext.P5) based on delay in proceedings and non-return of seized records.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the correctness and sustainability of the penalty order (Ext.P5) issued by the second respondent. The petitioner's contention was that there was a significant delay between the inspection on 10.5.2006 and the issuance of the penalty notice (Ext.P1) nearly 7 years later. The petitioner submitted documents (Ext.P2 and Ext.P4) before the second respondent, but the proceedings culminated in the contested Ext.P5 order. The petitioner argued that the records seized were never returned, questioning the legality of the actions taken by the respondents.

The court considered the submissions from both parties and noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps in the past 7 years to request the return of the seized documents. The court highlighted that the dealer had failed to produce the books of accounts despite multiple notices and opportunities provided by the authorities. The court found that the petitioner could have approached the concerned authority for the return of documents but failed to do so. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the relevant provisions of law and stated that it was not appropriate to interfere in this case using discretionary jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the departmental authorities to retrieve the documents. The court directed the petitioner to produce the books of accounts as requested by the second respondent on a specified date. Once verified, the seized records were to be returned to the petitioner within two weeks. The court concluded by instructing the petitioner to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the second respondent for further action.