TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate for the respondents. 4.. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 5.. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership-firm and carries on the business of sale and supply of motor parts and accessories, it has the place of business at A.T. Road, Guwahati. The petitioner No. 2 is a partner of the petitioner s firm. On March 14, 1995 a team of officers including the Superintendent of Taxes attached to the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences), Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences), Inspector of Taxes attached to the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences), Inspector of Police, Bureau of Investigation and other officers visited the premises of the petitioner s firm. It is alleged that the respondent No. 4, Inspector of Taxes attached to the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences) instantly issued a notice dated March 14, 1995 whereby petitioner No. 2 was directed to produce the books of accounts for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 at 3.30 p.m. itself on the same day for verification. It is further alleged that at the time of writing of the notice, the other officers started searching in the business premises of the petitioner-firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Bureau is not authorised by the statutory provisions, by mere notification the same cannot be vested with a statutory power to levy and collect tax under the Act. 7.. In support of contention of Dr. Saraf, learned advocate for the petitioners draws my attention to section 44(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Section 44 provides for production, inspection and seizure of accounts, documents and goods and search of premises. Section 44(1) provides that any authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3, may either before or after assessment, require any dealer to produce before it or him any accounts, registers or documents or to furnish any information relating to the financial transactions of the dealer, the profit derived from such transactions and the stock of goods produced, raised, processed, manufactured, bought, sold or delivered by such dealer and the dealer shall comply with such requirement. Sub-section (3) of section 44 provides that if any authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 has reason to suspect that any dealer is to evade the payment of any tax, such authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deemed to be sufficient in compliance with the provisions of the Act. In support of his contention, Dr. Saraf relies in a decision reported in [1994] 95 STC 189 (Gauhati); [1994] 2 GLR 239 (Gauhati) (Saligram Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxes). That was a case under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. The section 31 gives the power to the authority to order for production of books of accounts. This Court pointed out that in order to exercise the power to seize the articles, conditions required must be fulfilled and without fulfilling the conditions, the question of seizure does not arise. How far this case helps the petitioner in this particular case will be decided later on. 9.. The next case relied on by Dr. Saraf is unreported judgment of this Court in Civil Rule Nos. 878 and 879 of 1972 (Mercantile Stores Agency Company Pvt. Ltd., Balimara Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Rahman, Inspector of Taxes). That was a case under section 44(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 and there the Division Bench of this Court relying on a Supreme Court s decision pointed out that the reasons which must be recorded must be prior to the seizure of the books of accounts. Any reasons recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness a benefit. Provisions designed to evade tax evasion should receive due consideration in the hands of the court, it should not be used to defeat the avowed object of the Legislature. The enactment and the rule are designed to prevent fraud on the revenue. It is more properly a statute against fraud rather than a taxing statute and for this reason properly subject to a liberal construction in the Governments favours. However we must avoid arbitrary, unconstitutional and potentially unjust results. It must also be remembered that in applying a statute designed for detection of fraud for one providing for search and seizure of tax payer s property two competing public interests are involved, that offences involving tax fraud should be detected and that the right of the individual to the protection of law from the unjustified interference with his use and enjoyment of his private property should be upheld. A construction should be placed that is least restrictive of individual rights, if the contention of Dr. Saraf is accepted it will mean that the very purpose of surprise visit will be frustrated, the logical consequence of such a surprise visit shall fall through. That sort of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
