9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o opportunity of being heard has been given to the concerned petitioners, nor has an enquiry in the manner prescribed been conducted as is mandatory under the proviso to sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 16A of the Act. 3.. Before we go to the scheme of section 16A, as well as the proviso, we will refer to the facts in these individual writ petitions. In O.P. 1094 of 1959, the petitioner seeks to have the notice, exhibit P 1 dated 11th September, 1959, issued by the Sales Tax Officer quashed According to the petitioner, when certain goods, namely, 7 bags of maida flour, were being transported to his place of business and which have been purchased by him, the goods were seized by the concerned officers and taken into custody. Though some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16A of the Act and therefore the petitioner had no real opportunity of placing his points of view before the officer, nor had he an opportunity of being heard and there has been no enquiry in the manner prescribed. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the officer has practically decided the matter, namely, confiscating the goods, he has only given the petitioner an option viz., either to accept the confiscation or to pay penalty four times the tax recoverable under sub-section (6) of section 16A of the Act. 5.. In the counter-affidavit, the State has referred to the fact that there has been no violation of any of the provisions of either the Statute or the Rules. In paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit in particular, the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations as made in the connected writ petition have been made. Therefore, it is not necessary to advert to them in any great detail. There is also an allegation to the effect that the Sales Tax Officer has not violated any of the provisions of the Statute or the Rules. 8.. In O.P. 1096 of 1959, the petitioner therein again attacks the notice, exhibit P1 dated 11th September, 1959, issued by the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Trivandrum. The goods in question were eight bags of soda ash and in all other respects, -the notice exhibit P1 is also identical with exhibit P1 which we have already referred to in O.P. 1094 of 1959. The allegations made by the petitioner as well as the Sales Tax Officer in this case are also exactly similar to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note and, when the goods vehicle or boat enters or leaves the State limits, the declaration referred to in sub-section (2) also. Sub-section (5) provides that where the declaration made under subsection (2) is false in respect of the materials furnished therein, the officer in charge of the check post or barrier or any other officer empowered in that behalf shall have the power to seize and confiscate the goods in respect of which the declaration is false. Then there is a proviso to the effect that before taking action for the confiscation of goods "under this section", the officer shall give the person affected an opportunity of being heard and make an inquiry in the manner prescribed. Sub-section (6) of section 16A provides that whenev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 16A, prima facie the officer will have jurisdiction to seize the goods. In respect of the non-possession of any of the documents mentioned in subsection (2) there is also power given in sub-section (4) to confiscate any goods which are under transport. But the essential point to be noted is that under the proviso to sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 16A, before action is taken for confiscation of the goods, under the said section, the officer is bound to give the person affected an opportunity of being heard and there is also an obligation on the part of the officer to make an inquiry in the manner prescribed. 12.. No doubt, the proviso, as it appears in the text of the section, will give room for doubt as to whether it is a provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the proviso to sub-sections (1) to (5) have not been taken into account at all by the officer in question. After seizing the goods, they have straightway proceeded on the basis that further action to be taken is only on the basis of sub-section (6) of section 16A of the Act. 14.. Apart from the notices, even the counter-affidavits filed by the officers in these matters, especially paragraph 2 clearly shows that they had in mind this aspect that once the goods have been seized, the next stage is only action under sub-section (6) of section 16A of the Act. There is nothing in the counter-affidavits filed by the officers in these matters to indicate that they gave an apportunity, as required under the proviso to sub-section (1) to (5) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
