TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t authorities for the non-supply of the copies of the preliminary verification report and the seized documents, on the findings so reached by us, we do not think that any prejudice, ipso facto, could possibly be caused to the appellant. Appeal dismissed. - W.A. No. 53 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2011 - VAIPHEI T. AND UPADHYAY A.C., JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by T. VAIPHEI J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 30, 2008 passed by the learned single judge of this court in W.P.(C) No. 423 of 2002 (Tushar Kanti Mazumdar v. State of Assam [2011] 44 VST 427 (Gauhati) upholding the seizure of certain documents pertaining to the business of the petitioner effected under section 44(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 ( the Sales Tax Act , for short), of the retention of the seized document beyond the period of 120 days prescribed by the Act and of the notice dated November 8, 2001 issued by respondent No. 4 requiring the appellant to appear before him and to produce some account books maintained by him. The appellant is the proprietor of the firm under the name and style of M/s. Eastern Drugs and Chemicals, which is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfaction of the seizing authority as required by the Sales Tax Act; that if a dealer is found be engaged in business beyond those enumerated in the registration certificate, there are ample provisions in the Act for amendment of the registration certificate; that the second ground in support of the seizure, as recorded in the seizure list dated July 31, 2001, is also not tenable as no loose sheets had been specifically mentioned in the seizure list; that the seized documents or photo copies thereof are required by him for the purpose of preparing his books of accounts without which he is not in a position to produce such accounts before the concerned Sales Tax Officer; that retention of the seized documents can be for a maximum period of 120 days under the proviso to section 44(3) of the Sales Tax Act whereafter the reasons for the retention have to be recorded and approved by the Commissioner of Taxes, but in this case, neither any such reasons have been recorded nor has the approval of the Commissioner been obtained; and that the documents seized followed a search operation which, however, was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents, contends that there is no provision under the Sales Tax Act for supplying such documents and report and the request made by the appellant for supply of those documents, in the absence of an enabling statutory provision, is ill-conceived: there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice when the law does not prescribe observance of the principles of natural justice. Countering this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Bhati submits that the appellant is entitled to supply of copies of the report as well as the seized documents even if the statutory rules laying down the procedure for taking up the proceedings for disposal of the seizure proceedings are silent on the subject or against it, and denial of such documents, which are necessary to prepare his case, will cause prejudice to him and will, ipso facto, be violative of the principles of natural justice. To buttress his contentions, he relies on the following decisions of the apex court: (i) Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand [2010] 11 SCC 278, (ii) Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC); [2008] 14 SCC 151, (iii) Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice including the one that material sought to be used against the person concerned must be disclosed to him and he should be given an opportunity to explain his position. This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision, which forms an integral part of the rule of law. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. It draws the attention of the authority concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the cause which may be shown by the other side before coming to its decision. 23. When it comes to taking of disciplinary action against a delinquent employee, the employer is not only required to make the employee aware of the specific imputations of misconduct but also to disclose the material sought to be used against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining his position or defending himself. If the employer uses some material adverse to the employee about which the latter is not given notice, the final decision get vitiated on the ground of the violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Even if there are no statutory rules which regulate holding of disciplinary enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to prove what prejudice has been caused to him. In the instant case, the pleadings of the appellant with regard to prejudice are found at paragraph 13 of the writ petition, which is reproduced below: 13. That the petitioner begs to state that the impugned notice dated November 8, 2000 is equally violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the copies of the alleged preliminary verification report of the seized books of account had not been supplied along with the impugned notice to meet out effectively the allegations of evasion of the alleged tax. Further, the action of initiating further proceedings is equally vitiated for non-supply of the photostat copies of the seized documents in spite of request to that effect was made by the petitioner vide his letter dated December 3, 2001. We have gone through the letter dated December 3, 2001, wherein the appellant stated that the said book of account/documents is being forwarded to you and on November 8, 2001 you called upon us to produce our books of account before you for your verification. The letter further requested respondent No. 4 to release the seized books of accounts/ documents to enable them to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
