9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh there is a limitation provided for finalisation of proceedings. Their Lordships found that the limitation provided in Section 67 is for completion of proceedings, which period has to be computed from the date of detection of offence. In such circumstances, it was also held that detection of offence should be within a reasonable time from the date of inspection or the date of verification of books of accounts. The proceedings cannot be sustained - The petitioners would have to be relegated to the statutory remedy. The petitioners would be entitled to file appeals under the statute within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment - petition disposed off. - WP (C). No. 12391 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommencement to be on detention of offence. We noticed the observation in W.A 385 of 2009 that there is no time provided for detection of offence, which we held should be within a proximate period from the date of inspection and any delay caused will have to be satisfactorily explained; except in cases where the proceedings are finalised within the period of limitation. On these broad principles laid down by us as also the other Division Bench decision, we proceed to consider the question of limitation as urged in these writ petitions. 3. A dealer in tobacco one A.P Kakku's premises were inspected by the intelligence wing of the Commercial Taxes Department. Allegations were raised of unaccounted sales to various dealers in and around ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer delayed the verification and intimation of the specific allegation against the purchasing dealers. This extended beyond the period of limitation of three years, argues learned Counsel. The subsequent amendment would not come to the aid of the Department since the limitation period of three years expired even before the notice against the present petitioners were issued. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State however would submit that the proceedings required verification of a number of records of different assessees and that was why there was time taken to issue a notice. It is argued that at first, the proceedings against the selling dealer had to be concluded and it was after that the purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why notices were not issued in the name of the petitioners, the purchasing dealers on 23.09.2014. But, even then, the conclusion of proceedings is within five years from the date of detection. As we found in W.A No.344/2017; if the finalisation is carried out within the limitation period there can be no allegation raised of the notice of penalty, the sure sign of detection of offence, being not proximate to the inspection or verification of accounts. In the present cases, as we found, against the purchasing dealers the date of detection of offences should relate back to 30.09.2014. The order now issued against the purchasing dealers impugned in the writ petitions are dated 18.03.2017; within the limitation period. It is within the fiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
