9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.. The petitioner-company moved a revision application before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes challenging the aforesaid notice dated February 17, 1990. The respondent No. 1 admitted the application and stayed the operation of the impugned notice on October 13, 1990, the respondent No. 5, namely, the Superintendent of Taxes, attached to the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence), Assam, Rehabari, Guwahati, visited the business premises of the petitioner-company along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence), Guwahati and served a notice under section 31(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 directing the petitioner-company to produce the accounts, documents and other relevant papers relating to the purchase/sale of electrically operated pump sets on the same day and at the same time, the books of account were seized by the respondent No. 5 in the purported exercise of power under section 31(1) of the aforesaid Act. Books of account were seized by the respondent No. 5 in the purported exercise of power under section 31(3) of the Act and to that effect a seizure list also was served. A revision application was filed be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s illegal, arbitrary and capricious as there cannot be any basis and/or satisfaction for such a belief that the petitioner was attempting to evade payment of tax under the Act nor any such satisfaction and/or reason thereof was recorded by the seizing officer before the seizure of the said books of account. 4.. That the Commissioner of Taxes acted arbitrarily and illegally in dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the seizure has not been made under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act without considering the fact that any proceeding relating to evasion of tax under the Act can be taken only by resorting to the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner of Taxes being the sole authority vested with the power under the Act, it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner of Taxes in not exercising its jurisdiction and thereby denying the petitioner its legal rights and remedy. 5.. That the issue of search warrant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as, section 27 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, provides that no court shall take cognizance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsibility in investigating into cognizable offences under section 156 of the Cr.P.C. which contemplates as follows: '(1) Any officer in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate'." In the instant case, police had definite information that M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. had paid less tax on electrically operated pump sets than what they ought to have paid as per existing rules. Paying less tax than what is due is virtually nothing but evasion of taxes coming within the mischief of section 25 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. On receipt of credible information about evasion of taxes by the petitioner-firm, police acted under section 157 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, for issue of a search warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this connection, Dr. Saraf placed reliance in AIR 1965 SC 1 (Nilratan Sircar v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 14, inter alia, states as follows: "14. It was also urged for the appellant that the provisions of section 5(2) of the Code apply to the present case in matters which are not provided by the Act. This contention too has no basis. Section 5 provides that all offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. The Act is a special Act and it provides under section 19-A for the necessary investigation into the alleged suspected commission of an offence under the Act, by the Director of Enforcement. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore will not apply to such investigation by him, assuming that the expression 'investigation' includes the retaining of the documents for the purposes of the investigation." 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
