9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e godown or building when called upon to do so" - The said power cannot be extended ad infinitum to be exercised in the circumstances not prescribed by law. Admittedly, in the present case, at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not only present, but also had cooperated with the inspection. Thus, his presence cannot be denied. Moreover, the Revenue cannot claim that he had refused to open any part of the building, or prevented the CTO to inspect the site. Hence, none of the circumstances mentioned in section 52(1) (f) of the KVAT Act, is satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the CTO was not justified in directing that the premises should be sealed forthwith. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformed him that the same could not be produced as they were with the Auditors. Notwithstanding the justification given by the petitioner, the CTO directed that the business premises of the petitioner should be sealed. Hence, the present petition before this court. 3. Mr. K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that section 52 of the KVAT Act, provides a specific power of entry, search and seizure , but the said power has to be exercised in certain prescribed circumstances. Section 52(1)(f) of the KVAT Act, permits the sealing of a business premise, that is, of a godown or building, a part of the godown or building, provided that the owner or the person-incharge of the business, or any ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s right to livelihood is being denied in violation of the law. Therefore, the impugned order violates article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, Mr. T. K. Vedamurthy, the learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that section 52(1)(f) of the KVAT Act, would have to be read, keeping in mind the letter and spirit of the law. Considering the fact that the CTO was of the opinion that the petitioner is likely to sell off the timber lying in the godown, and would not inform the Department about the selling, considering the fact that there was likelihood that same had been done even on earlier occasions, the CTO was justified in directing the premises to be sealed. Lastly, the learned counsel has pleaded that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower to seal cannot be exercised beyond the four circumstances mentioned herein- above. Since the power to seal adversely affects the interest of the person- in-charge of the business, naturally the power has to be exercised within a narrower compass. The said power cannot be extended ad infinitum to be exercised in the circumstances not prescribed by law. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not only present, but also had cooperated with the inspection. Thus, his presence cannot be denied. Moreover, the Revenue cannot claim that he had refused to open any part of the building, or prevented the CTO to inspect the site. Hence, none of the circumstances mentioned in section 52(1) (f) of the KVA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
