TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and marked with the letter "A". The applicant was directed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation to produce before him all relevant documents necessary for explaining the seized books, documents and papers. The records were directed to be produced on November 15, 1989. The applicant prayed for an adjournment for 45 days on the ground of physical illness. The hearing arising out of the seizure of the goods was adjourned from time to time and we are now told that it has been finally adjourned to December 28, 1989. In the meantime the applicant received a communication from the State Bank of India, Vivekananda Road Branch, with which the applicant has an account, that the Commercial Tax Officer has issued a prohibitory order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reed that the matter may be heard on the basis of the record which the respondent may produce at the hearing but without using any affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the respondent, argued that the examination of the seized books of account indicates that the applicant has evaded payment of sales tax to the tune of about Rs. 7 lakhs during the period from April 1, 1989 to October 19, 1989. In the background of such revelation, it is submitted, that the respondent felt in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, that some such order should be issued. Mr. Chakraborty also drew our attention to the letter written by the respondent to the State Bank of India, Vivekananda Road Branch, dated November 20, 1989. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent, while emphasising that the applicant has not been co-operating with them in regard to the hearing and that there are very good and strong reasons to believe that the applicant has been evading sales tax in respect of a considerable sum of money, therefore, the respondent was obliged to issue such directions upon the bank. It was further contended that even though there may not be any specific provision in the Act itself authorising the respondent to take such action it is within the competence of the respondent to take such steps under the incidental or ancillary powers of the respondent. We do not see how the question of incidental or ancillary powers arise in a case like this. Even assuming that the applicant has been evading paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
