9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken against them for dishonour of the cheques of Rs.35 lacs tendered by Shri Sukhdev Kumar, petitioner no.1 on the date when the goods were detained at the time of inspection on 10.6.2013. All the cheques were post dated for 11.6.2013 as security for keeping the goods in the custody of petitioner no.1, a partner in all the firms. The notice further calls for a reply as to why on the dishonour of the cheques, a first information report be not lodged for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, and that the order, by which the goods were given in custody, be cancelled and further steps be taken. 3. Shri Nishant Mishra, appearing for the petitioners submits that on a complaint made by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, a retired IAS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (7) of Section 48 rejecting petitioner's representation against which the petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal has been partly allowed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal on 16.7.2013, reducing the amount of security, to the amount of tax payable on goods. Since the amount of Rs. 5 lacs was already paid by encashment of cheque dated 11.6.2013, the petitioners were required to pay Rs. 9 lacs, which he has deposited by treasury challans on 24.7.2013. 5. Shri Nishant Mishra submits that the entire action is arbitrary and lacks bonafide. The department was pressurised by the complainant Dr. Pradeep Kumar, a retired IAS officer, who was not issued a valid receipt of purchase of marble. The officers of the department conducted survey at the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure. He submits that the respondents are still pressing for action in pursuance to the impugned notice dated 21.6.2013, even after the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, reducing the amount of security, which has been complied with by the petitioners. This Court may pass necessary orders to take action against the respondents and to quash the notice dated 21.6.2013, by which a threat has been extended to the petitioners to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for dishonour of the cheques and to lodge a first information report under Section 48 of IPC for criminal breach of trust. 7. Shri C.B. Tripathi, on the other hand, submits that an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of seizure and presenting the cheques for encashment. 8. We have heard the submissions and perused the documents annexed to the affidavits, and do not find any error of law in the orders passed by the respondents in carrying out search at business premises of the petitioners. At the time of search the petitioner no.1 was present, and thus the goods were not liable to be seized. In the present case the goods were not seized on 6.6.2013, instead the security was taken for safe keeping of the goods in the shape of post dated cheques of Rs. 40 lacs, offered voluntarily. The department has relied on a letter signed by petitioner no.1, in which he had not only admitted tendering of five post dated cheques by way of security but also given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
