9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir business with effect from April 1, 2003 onwards. They also challenge the seizure list of the same date (annexure D) under sub-section (3) of section 44 of the AGST Act. Petitioner No. 1 carries on the business of manufacture and sale of tyres and petitioner No. 2 is the carrying and forwarding agent of the petitioner No. 1. They supply tyres to the Indian Security Agencies and the present proceeding relates to the supply order(s) issued by the Chief Engineer (Projects), Dantak. The supply was made to the different locations of Bhutan but the precise destination was undisclosed for security consider ation. The petitioners have, inter alia, enclosed the communication made by the Chief Engineer of Project, Dantak to show that the supplies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as may be reasonably necessary for examination thereof or for a prosecution under section 57 and shall thereafter be returned to the person concerned in the prescribed manner: Provided that if the seized accounts, registers or documents are retained by any authority other than the Commissioner for more than one hundred and twenty days, the reasons for so doing shall be recorded in writing and the approval of the Commissioner shall be obtained by the authority so retaining them." The petitioners contend that seizure can't be made without fulfilling the requirement of having a reason to suspect and also basing such suspicion on objective reasoning. The learned counsel refers to the impugned seizure notice to show that no reason(s) are recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e power under sub-section (3), reason has to be recorded in writing, before seizure is made. If the authorities actually believed that the dealer hadn't exported the tyres to a foreign country and was involved in inter-State sale, such reason could have been easily disclosed in the seizure notice as it was preceded by a preliminary investigation by the Revenue authorities. But unfortunately the seizure notice does not disclose any reason and appears to be, mere re-production of the statutory provisions of section 44(3) of the AGST Act. A Division Bench of this court in Civil Rule No. 878 of 1972 (Mercantile Stores & Agency Company Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Rahman, Inspector of Taxes, Dibrugarh) while examining the purport of section 44(3) of the AG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Dibrugarh Civil Rule No. 878 of 1972) recorded the following: ". . . The legal position is very clear that before the seizure under subsection (3) of section 44 is made, the officer concerned must have reasons to suspect that the dealer is attempting to evade payment of any tax under the Act and he must record such reasons in writing. First there must exist reasons to raise a suspicion in the mind of the officer concerned that the dealer is attempting to evade payment of any tax under the Act and secondly if he wants to seize any accounts, registers or documents of the dealer, he must record the reasons in writing therefor and then only he may seize the accounts, registers or documents of the dealer." In this case, the seizure order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
