Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Dhruv Jewels Through Proprietor Shivkumar Bapulal Totla Versus State of Gujarat & 2

2017 (8) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Sealing of premises - Held that: - by Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 was substituted from the original, in which, these powers are completely missing. Thus the legislature while reenacting section 67 consciously omitted the powers of the Commissioner for sealing such premises - There is nothing in this order suggesting that the seal was put temporarily so that the search can be resumed after the brief break. Even otherwise, according to the respondents, the business premises do not have too .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r order dated 27.06.2017. If the notice dated 23.03.2017 was not served and the notice dated 12.06.2017 of the hearing dated 19.06.2017 was served after the date had passed, clearly the petitioner had no opportunity to appear before the authority and to defend its position - even otherwise, the order of cancellation of registration suffers from legal errors. As per the show cause notice dated 23.03.2017, the authorities believed that the petitioner had discontinued the business during the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IL KURESHI) 1. Petitioner is a proprietary concern and is a dealer of jewelery. The petitioner firm has been registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act 2003 ('the VAT Act' for short) as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act ('the CST Act' for short). The business premises of the petitioner firm were subjected to search operation by the VAT authorities on 27.06.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner's shop was sealed on the same day. The order of the authority of the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

any material on record. 3. We may consider the petitioner's two challenges on the basis of materials on record. With respect to the order dated 27.06.2017 sealing the business premises of the petitioner firm, counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the VAT Act, there is no power for sealing the premises. Before its amendment, vide Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 of the VAT Act contained such powers, however, legislature by the said amendment, has consciously removed such powers. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns authorizing the Commissioner to seal the premises including the office, shop, godown, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle under certain circumstances. In particular, clause (vi) of subsection (3) of section 67 provided that; (3) Where the Commissioner, has reason to believe that … … (c) books of account, registers or documents of any dealer may be destroyed, multilated, altered, falsified or any sale or purchase by that dealer have been or may be suppressed, or any go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion to the Commissioner or the authorised officer in the discharge of his duties under this section. 5. However, by Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 was substituted from the original, in which, these powers are completely missing. Thus the legislature while reenacting section 67 consciously omitted the powers of the Commissioner for sealing such premises. The action of the authority to do so under its order dated 27.06.2017 was therefore illegal. We are unable to see from the order or even ot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d to be set aside. 7. Coming to the question of cancellation of registration by order dated 27.06.2017, the petitioner's contention is that no notice was served to the petitioner before this order was passed. In this respect, the respondents rely on a notice dated 23.03.2017 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, conveying to the petitioner that for the assessment year 2016-17, the return filed by the petitioner shows zero sale and purchases. It would therefore appear that the peti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rved on him and that he received the notice dated 12.06.2017 when he opened his business premises. This notice carried a stamp of delivery of 21.06.2017. Thus, the notice of hearing dated 19.06.2017 was delivered to the petitioner on 21.06.2017. The respondents have not controverted either of these two factual assertions. In other words, the respondents are unable to show any evidence of service of the first notice dated 23.03.2017 or of service of second notice dated 12.06.2017 before 19.06.201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version