9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered godown to the new one, were also produced alongwith explanation to the show cause notice. The documents have been discarded on the sole ground that there has been delay of three days in producing the documents since the date of seizure of the goods. It is not in dispute that at the time of inspection, no records were produced. The documents produced on 15.9.2014 were discarded on the ground of delay in filing the same. The applicant admits that its head office is located only at a distance of one kilometer from the place of seizure. In these circumstances, the view of the authorities seizing the goods, for discarding the documents, cannot be said to be illegal or irrational to warrant interference by this Court. Since, at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue, in this regard, is accepted, being a finding of fact, but still it is evident therefrom that the applicant had already taken steps for getting the new godown registered. There appears to be some force in the argument of the revisionist that there was no mensrea on part of the applicant and the delay caused in getting the new godown registered, was for reasons beyond its control. However, these questions are still to be examined in the penalty proceedings and as such, no final opinion is expressed at this stage, lest it may prejudice the parties. However, I am of the firm opinion that it is a fit case warranting exercise of power under the first proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Act. Applicant should deposit 50% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order dated 16.10.2014. The order of Joint Commissioner (S.I.B.) Commercial Tax Range II, Lucknow, requiring the applicant firm to deposit cash security of 40% of the estimated value of the seized goods, was modified and the release has been permitted on deposit of security of 30% of the value of goods in cash. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally at this stage itself. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the seizure order is bad in law, as the goods found in the godown, were duly accounted in the accounts of the firm, maintained in ordinary course of business. It is contended that the account books have been wro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn was made for the first time on 9.9.2014 and thus, 30 days time was available with it to intimate such change. Consequently, no case for seizure was made out. In any case, the demand of cash security for the entire amount of tax allegedly payable is onerous, as the goods are not vatable. On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Sankhdhar, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that admittedly at the time of inspection, the applicant firm failed to produce the account register and other documents relating to the goods found in the godown. It took repeated adjournments and ultimately, filed documents on 15.9.2014 after fabricating the same. It is thus contended that the seizure order as well as the order directing the applicant to deposit secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een discarded on the sole ground that there has been delay of three days in producing the documents since the date of seizure of the goods. It is not in dispute that at the time of inspection, no records were produced. The documents produced on 15.9.2014 were discarded on the ground of delay in filing the same. The applicant admits that its head office is located only at a distance of one kilometer from the place of seizure. In these circumstances, the view of the authorities seizing the goods, for discarding the documents, cannot be said to be illegal or irrational to warrant interference by this Court. Since, at the time of inspection, the applicant firm failed to produce relevant records and as such, the officer making inspection, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en disputed that prior to inspection on 11.9.2014, the applicant had already applied for password on 6.8.2014, which application, according to the Revenue, was disposed of on 12.8.2014, while, according to the applicant, it remained pending as the password was communicated to it in the evening of 10.9.2014. Even if the version of the Revenue, in this regard, is accepted, being a finding of fact, but still it is evident therefrom that the applicant had already taken steps for getting the new godown registered. There appears to be some force in the argument of the revisionist that there was no mensrea on part of the applicant and the delay caused in getting the new godown registered, was for reasons beyond its control. However, these question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
