TMI Blog1965 (4) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nadar, who is one of the petitioners in W. P. No. 1577 of 1964, is a registered dealer carrying on business in grocery articles and pulses at No. 137, Great Cotton Road, Tuticorin. He had been assessed for the years 1959-60 to 1963-64. On 11th September, 1964, according to the dealer, a group of six or seven officers of the Commercial Taxes Department, under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Madurai, made a surprise inspection of his place of business, godowns and residence. When they inspected the dealer's residence, No. 73, Thattar Street, Tuticorin, at 12-30 p.m., a large number of relations had gathered in the house in connection with a condolence. The officers declined to accept the request of the dealer not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her for Rs. 200 respectively. Both the receipts state that the third respondent, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, collected those sums as advance tax without specifying the period, month or year, to which the advance tax related. At 8 p.m. again the officers made their appearance at the dealer's shop and took a second statement from him. This is to the effect that the sum of Rs. 65,504 represented profits not brought into account from the year 1960-61 and therefore for the periods 1960-61 to 1963-64, there must be a turnover of three lakhs each year and for the current year, a turnover of Rs. 1,10,080, the total turnover thus amounting to Rs. 13,10,080 which was subject to tax at two per cent. and that calculated at this rate the tax w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng further by a rule of prohibition. The respondents have filed a common counter-affidavit in both these petitions. They deny the material allegations of the petitioners. In effect they say that during a search the dealer voluntarily produced the sum of Rs. 26,200 as for advance tax and also voluntarily made the two statements. According to them, the amount was legally and properly received and two receipts were passed in respect of them, and the dealer was not entitled to a return of the sum or to a rule of prohibition against further proceedings pursuant to the summons served by the second respondent. We are of the view that the sum of Rs. 26,200 would not have been voluntarily produced by the dealer or his wife but should have been tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for those who are to obey the law but also for those who are to enforce the law. We hold that the petitioners in W. P. No. 1577 of 1964 are entitled to a rule. The respondents will forthwith return the sum of Rs. 26,200 to the petitioners under their joint receipt therefor. This petition is allowed with costs, which we fix at Rs. 250. The other petition stands on a different footing. Though we have our own suspicion, in view of the fact that the proceedings taken by the respondent in this petition are pending, we shall make no observation with reference to the two statements of the dealer. His apprehension is that the assessing Officer may simply proceed on the basis of the alleged admissions in those two statements, in which case he woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
