9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urniture and Interiors v. CTO [2009 (2) TMI 886 - KERALA HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this Court had found that there is no time stipulated in the Statute for detection of offence, though 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 - petition allowed. - WP (C). No. 8446 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2018 - MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of such period of limitation, we have followed a Division Bench judgment in W.A No.385/2009 dated 18.02.2009 [M/s Acme Furniture and Interiors Vs. CTO]; which held the commencement to be on detection of offence. We noticed the observation in W.A.No.385/2009 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 or a reasonable period from the date of inspection itself. On these broad principles laid down by us, as also the other Division Bench decision, we proceed to consider the question of limitation as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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. 6. Here, the inspection was conducted in October, 2011 and summons was issued on 31.10.2011. The assessee submits that the books of accounts were produced immediately. For argument sake, we would accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that no books of accounts were produced. Even then, there was no warrant for keeping the matter pending till 2016, when a subsequent summons was issued. We also notice that in the year 2011, when the proceedings were initiated, there was a limitation of three years provided for finalisation of proceedings. The O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer waited till 2016 to issue a further summons. Ext.P4 order passed also asserts that even the second summons was not responded to and hence the Officer proposes to finalise the proceedings by verifying the materials recovered and the data available in the KVATIS. So detection of offence was possible even without the books of accounts and so could the proceedings have been finalised. It is strange that such wisdom dawned on the Officer very late and not within a reasonable, proximate time from the first instance of non production of books of accounts. We, hence, find the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition to be barred by limitation and Ext.P4 order is set aside allowing this Writ Petition. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
