9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the parties. 2.. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Davangere, visited the rice mill premises of the petitioner at about 3.45 p.m. and started indiscriminately collecting books of account and other records available in the premises of the rice mill. He has narrated the number of books that were taken custody of by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed his statement of objections denying the allegations that the books of account as per exhibit A were seized in the manner described by the petitioner. Denying the allegations of the petitioner, he has asserted that the seizure of them by him during inspection was done normally and could not be said to be illegal. 3.. Some of the facts are not in dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zone, Bangalore, by order No. MISC/CR/77/78-79 dated 22nd August, 1979. This obviously is a mistake so far as it relates to the year. The despatching date as endorsed on the communication shows that it was despatched on 25th August, 1979. Assuming for a moment that it was indeed ordered on 22nd August, 1978, permitting the respondent to keep in custody the books of account and records for a furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etrospective. In that view of the matter, the subsequent amendment of the law enhancing the retention period to 60 days will not affect the case of the petitioner as retention by the respondent beyond 4th August, 1978, had become illegal and there is no provision in the Act by which the said illegality can be cured. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to further investigate and examine t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
