9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 60 days. In the instant case, the premises of the petitioner was inspected on 22.5.2012, on which date, the documents were impounded. The petitioner was asked to submit its reply and to explain impounded documents which was not possible for it, without seeing them. The concerned Officer of the respondents ought to have supplied the copies of the impounded documents, before asking the petitioner to submit its reply and to explain the same. Accordingly, the order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. - Decided in favor of assessee. - CWP No.13356 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. For The Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed to file its reply and to produce the entire records. The case was adjourned number of times. The respondents did not take any action till April 2015 and then started pressuring the petitioner to deposit certain amount with regard to inspection case. The petitioner filed a request letter on 6.4.2015 referring to section 46 of 2005 Act for return of the impounded documents, but of no avail. In pursuance of notice, the proprietor of the concern along with his accountant appeared in the office of the respondent no.2 on 28.5.2015, but he was not found available in the office, even after waiting for him for a sufficiently long time. On contact through mobile, he was found to be at Chandigarh. Thereafter, without issuing any notice or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also been created under the 1956 Act by stating that no declaration form was produced during the proceedings, though `C forms were produced by retaining their photocopies. The petitioner was unable to explain the documents without having the copies of the impounded documents.. On the other hand, learned State counsel has no serious objection in accepting the writ petition and remanding the case by quashing the impugned exparte order dated 12.6.2015. There is force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, because the impugned order dated 12.6.2015 was passed exparte without supplying the copies of the impounded documents to the petitioner to enable it to submit its effective reply, explaining the entries in the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
