9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized from the possession of the petitioner on October 1, 1994 and stock verification revealed therefrom. The petitioner filed exhibit P4 reply on January 30, 1995. Ultimately the first respondent passed exhibit P5 order on February 23, 1995, rejecting the contentions of the assessee and levying a penalty of Rs. 17,97,418. The reason specifically mentioned in exhibit P5 is the alleged offence of non-maintenance of true and complete accounts for the year 1994-95. Exhibit P5 order of the first respondent is seriously challenged in this writ petition. 2.. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. It is an admitted case that though the documents were seized on October 1, 1994, they were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it down as unauthorised or illegal. In this case, I am primarily concerned with the way in which the first respondent has dealt with the entire decision-making process. I need not enter into or probe into the aspects prior to the notice proposing to levy penalty under section 45A of the Act, evidenced by exhibit P3. Of course there were anterior notices and replies between the first respondent and the petitioner. After analysing the issue, the first respondent proposed to levy penalty under section 45A of the Act. Exhibit P3, as pointed out above, is the show cause notice proposing to levy penalty. Under the provisions of section 45A there is a mandatory duty on the part of the authority concerned to afford an opportunity of being heard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Government Pleader has pointed out that the petitioner had been given opportunity to peruse the documents and to take copies therefrom. That will not at any rate disentitle the petitioner to ask for a further opportunity to file an effective reply after receipt of the documents that were seized from his possession. Therefore, according to me, exhibit P5 order is vitiated for the sole reason that an effective opportunity had been denied to the petitioner and for that reason I can only declare that exhibit P5 is quite illegal. So exhibit P5 is quashed. 6.. It is also apt to observe here that it is the duty of the court to lift the veil of the form and appearance in order to discover the true character and the nature of the order pursu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
