Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (2) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng 5 wagon load of Joist. He also contacted G.R. Goyal of M/s. G.I. Corporation at Netaji Subash Road, Kolkata, for providing similar space for unloading 4 wagons load of Joist, on rent at Rs. 25 per MT per month from the date of delivery of such goods till those are removed. An agreement was also made on March 26, 2002 between G.R. Goyal and the petitioner. 2.. On March 26, 2002/March 27, 2002 more or less 300 MT of joist were unloaded at R.K. Goyal's warehouse and 240 MT of joist at G.R. Goyal's warehouse on March 28, 2002. On April 4, 2002 the respondent No. 1 along with some other officials visited the warehouse and without verifying any documents, seized those goods arbitrarily which were purchased from the Indian Iron and S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fer to deliver the goods actually was given by IISCO to K.K. Enterprise, though petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 1,60,000 with declaration that no sales tax to be charged. The seized goods actually were not the identical goods sent by the IISCO, since no marking of IISCO has been found there to identify that the goods were delivered by IISCO. The goods actually delivered by IISCO might have been unloaded at some other godown. The seizure, therefore, rightly was made. RN-221 of 2002 was also heard since identical question of law is involved. 5.. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that search was held illegally without compliance of pre-seizure report as required under section 67 of the Act, 1994. Before conducting search reasons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods in other undisclosed godowns with an intention to evade payment of tax. 7.. The only point for consideration is, if the seizure and penalty proceeding initiated are legal and valid. 8.. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition admits, Hence I had no hesitation to admit the ownership of goods seized at undisclosed godown of the company located at the godown of G.I. Corporation Ltd. but the goods seized were not equated with the goods purchased from IISCO for the reasons stated above . There is thus no dispute regarding the ownership of the goods in question. To be sure about identity of the goods, any authorised officer of IISCO should have been examined. But, no officer of the IISCO was examined to identi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earned lawyer for the petitioner, inasmuch as, when no time-imit has been prescribed information has to be given regarding any change without any delay or at least before any action is taken by the Revenue for non-compliance of the provision of section 97 and such action can never be anticipated. It was, therefore, the duty of the petitioner to keep the Revenue informed about the place of unloading of the seized goods in question immediate before unloading to prove bona fide intention. Under section 88(h) it is an offence not to furnish any information as required under section 97. It is punishable under law even by confiscation of any seized goods under section 70. 10. It further transpires that the telephonic talk regarding the settl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e on April 4, 2002. The petitioner on March 22, 2002 (annexure H to A.O.) wrote to AGM (Sales) for sending the goods to Durgapur forwarding of a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000 though according to petitioner, he had no sufficient space there, whereas previous to that by letter dated March 19, 2002 direction was given to IISCO to despatch goods at Shalimar. Therefore, story of finalising the terms of the tenancy of the godown on rental basis in the last part of March, 2002 is baseless. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner had mala fide intention to keep the Revenue in dark regarding his new place for unloading the goods. This is clear violation of section 97 of the Act and is an offence under section 88(h) of the Act, 1994. 12.. We, therefor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates