9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were being scrutinised, Sri R.P. Gupta also reached there. He was asked to affix his signatures upon two copy books which were found at the time of survey and had been signed by the Surveying Officer. Instead, however, of signing and returning them to the Surveying Officer Sri R.P. Gupta is said to have handed over those copy books to a munim and asked him to run away with them. The munim did so. The copy books contained entries relating to business transactions of the dealer. Sri Gupta refused to sign the survey note as well. A notice was served upon the dealer to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him under section 15-A(1)(j) and (vi). The dealer showed cause which was not found satisfactory by the assessing authority w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (h) or clause (j), a sum not exceeding Rs. 5,000; and ............................ (2) ............................ (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) unless the dealer or other person concerned has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) ............................ (5) ............................ ............................" Section 13 of the Act, inter alia, provides that an authorised officer may require any dealer to produce before him any book, document or account relating to his business and may inspect, examine and copy the same. He may seize them too where he has reasonable grounds for believing that any dealer is trying to evade the liability for tax or other dues und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his liability for payment of tax would be included within the ambit of obstruction or prevention by him of an officer from performing his functions under the Act. In Phudki v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 All 104 this Court was called upon to decide whether running away of a person from arrest would amount to voluntary obstruction by him of any public servant in the discharge of his public functions within the meaning of section 186, Indian Penal Code. This Court took the view that it did not. For, in the opinion of Mukerji, J., who decided that case, merely running away from arrest did not amount to obstruction and that "obstruction connotes some positive act, which would deter the man obstructed from carrying out his intentions". "To be or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person proceeded against must be clearly told the accusation which is to be met by him. The act or omission on the basis whereof lie is said to have rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty must be specifically disclosed to him. Then alone would he be able to put forward his defence. In other words, the opportunity contemplated by sub-section (3) has to be an effective one. That it can only be when the person sought to be penalised knows what is the lapse attributed to him for rendering himself liable for penalty. The Tribunal has found that all that was contained in the notice served upon the applicant was that lie had not rendered proper co-operation at the time of the survey. The words used were these: "Sarvekshan dinank 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
