9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss premises and also initiation of confiscation proceedings. 2.. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the business premises of the petitioner were inspected on March 8, 2002 by the respondents and it continued the whole of the night of March 8, 2002 and three orders have been passed on the same day, viz., relating to the seizure of the gold and silver articles, a notice proposing to confiscate the articles seized and the confiscation order. The learned counsel further submits that though the respondents are entitled to search and seize the articles, in so far as passing an order of confiscation is concerned, as provided under section 28(6) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s explanation and therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that he has not been given any opportunity and the respondents have violated the procedure as contemplated under section 28(6) of the Act is far from reality and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4.. In the light of the submissions made by both the counsel, the point for consideration before us is, whether the order dated March 8, 2002 passed by the respondents relating to confiscation of the articles, which were seized on March 8, 2002, could be sustainable in the background of a corrigendum issued by the respondents on March 9, 2002. 5.. Admittedly, the search and seizure was held on March 8, 2002 and the notice proposing to confiscate the seized items was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular authority, that authority has power to revise or modify the same. In this case, the respondents issued a corrigendum on March 9, 2002 revising the confiscation order dated March 8, 2002. In the absence of any provision in the Act which empowers the authority to revise the confiscation order, we hold that the consequential order dated March 9, 2002 (corrigendum) is without authority and cannot be sustained. 7.. In the light of our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the order passed on March 8, 2002 confiscating the seized articles cannot be sustained and therefore, we set aside the same. The resultant effect is that the respondents are bound to consider the objections that would be filed by the petitioner and then decide a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
