9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, and is engaged in the business of pharmaceutical products with its registered office at Guwahati. According to the appellant, on July 31, 2001 at about 12.30 pm., a team of sales tax officials under respondent 3 visited the business premises of the appellant during his absence and issued a notice under section 44(1) of the Sales Tax Act requiring his employees present to produce the books of accounts of the firm for the year 1998-99 onwards for verification. Thereafter, according to the appellant, the visiting team made a search of his business premises and effected seizure of certain documents which are specifically mentioned in the seizure list dated July 31, 2001 enclosed as annexure B to the writ petition. The case of the respondents is that the seizure was made on the ground that the appellant, as the dealer, has been dealing in some taxable goods which are not covered by his registration leading to evasion of taxes and additionally he could not explain some transactions recorded in loose sheets and exercise books which were detected and seized on the date in question, i.e., July 31, 2001. It would appear that the notice dated November 8, 2001 was subsequently received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in law from any angle and prays for the intervention of the court. The State-respondents contested the writ petition and stated in their counter-affidavit, that on July 31, 2001 at about 12.30 pm., an inspection was carried out in the business premises of the appellant under section 44(1) of the Sales Tax Act and in the course of the inspection, some incriminating documents were found, which, when not reasonably explained by the employees of the appellant, were seized under section 44(3) of the Act. It was submitted by the respondents that the seizure followed an inspection under section 44(1) of the Act and was not pursuant to any search operation so as to require compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that the Commissioner by the order dated February 11, 2002 accorded his approval for retention of the seized documents by the respondents beyond 120 days; that in so far as the notice dated November 8, 2001 is concerned, the books of accounts which he was asked to produce before the authority were required to be produced by him much before the date of seizure of those documents, i.e., July 31, 2001 and it was not reasonable on his part to request the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a [1987] 3 SCC 431 and (v) City Corner v. Personal Assistant to Collector and Addl. District Magistrate, Nellore [1976] 1 SCC 124. It is the common ground of the counsel for both the parties that there is no express provision under the Sales Tax Act or the Rules made thereunder prescribing the supply of a copy of the preliminary verification report in respect of the seized books of accounts and copies of the seized documents. The question which, therefore, falls for consideration in this appeal is whether denial of such copies will render the impugned proceeding vitiated even when the statutory rules laying down the procedure for holding seizure proceedings are silent in this behalf or not? The learned single judge is of the view that the preliminary verification report as regards the extent of evasion of tax by the appellant is really on the basis of the seized books of accounts as well as the documents seized from him; that if the seized documents have been retained by the respondents legally and lawfully, as already held by him, the position emanating from such seized documents need not have been furnished to him along with the notice dated November 8, 2001; that any such actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rules of natural justice-Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee [1980] 3 SCC 459; [1980] SCC (L&S) 453. 24. However, every violation of the rules of natural justice may not be sufficient for invalidating the action taken by the competent authority/ employer and the court may refuse to interfere if it is convinced that such violation has not caused prejudice to the affected person/ employee." The theory of reasonable hearing and principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his rights. They are not incantations to be invoked or rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. In State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma [1996] 3 SCC 364, the apex court also held: "Thus, breach of rules of natural justice alone is No. 33.3. . . . Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under-'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir regular day-to-day business work in the absence whereof their business would be greatly affected or alternative to issue the photostat copies of the said documents so that they could finalize their accounts. We have referred to the letter dated February 3, 2001 in detail to ascertain what possible prejudice could have been caused to the appellant by the non-supply of the said documents since no facts or materials were pleaded in the memo of appeal to prove prejudice. However, even after reading and re-reading this letter, we are unable to say that any prejudice is being caused to the appellant by the non-supply of those documents. All that he stated in that letter is that the documents were essential for their audit purpose and for their regular day-to-day business work as otherwise their business was being greatly affected: he did not whisper any statement about his inability to reply to the impugned notice dated November 8, 2001 issued by respondent 4 due to non-supply of those documents. The appellant has thus failed to place any facts record to substantiate his case that any prejudice, not to speak of substantial prejudice, is being caused to him for non-supply of those do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
