9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tel including nephew of proprietor of the petitioner s firm Arihant Jain were available and signatures of all these persons were obtained while carrying out the Panchanama and then the stocks were checked there only. It was found that there was discrepancies in the stock which attracted the levy of tax, hence, the petitioner out of his own free will deposited the amount of tax as well as penalty of Rs.38,46,195/-. Thus, if the said Panchanama is perused, it is evident that on the date of search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty was deposited by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock and thus there was no question of any kind of seizure. Moreover, there were independent witnesses as well as the petitioner own repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of powers conferred under Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017 and thereafter the petitioner since had certain grievances as regards the manner of search, made an application before respondent No.4 and prayed that stock of coal lying in the premises be measured and checked again as earlier on 25/01/2022, the team which carried out the search did not seize any material and left the premises. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is being assailed inasmuch as the search was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017 inasmuch as to carry out the search under the provisions of Goods and Service Tax Act, the procedure as laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner cannot allege that the search was carried out in violation of statutory provisions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there are two independent witnesses namely Anil Dahiya and Arvind Patel signed panchnama and submits that the search was carried out strictly in accordance with law in the presence of representative of the petitioner and none of the representatives who were available at the time of search, raised any kind of objection as regards manner in which the search was carried out. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that it is not the case of Revenue that any material has been seized. On the contrary, during course of search the liability was admitted by the petitioner itself and therefore, the actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
