Back
S R Rajasekhara Murthy J.
V. LAXMAIAH
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE, CHALLAKERE.
Writ petition No. 5700 of 1985
Decided On: Decided On : 31-05-1990
seizure - Karnataka Sales Tax Act - section 28(3) - section 2(1)(k), section 5, section 10, section 29 - The court discussed the definition of 'dealer' under section 2(1)(k) of the Act, the charging section 5, the provisions of section 10 dealing with registration, and the relevant provisions of section 29. The court emphasized that the provisions of Chapter V are applicable to all dealers to whom the charging section of the Act applies, regardless of registration under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the seizure order made by the respondent under section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the grounds that he was not a dealer and therefore not obligated to register himself as a dealer under section 10 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before embarking upon the search, and therefore the seizure order was illegal and liable to be quashed.
Issues: The issues were whether the petitioner was obligated to register himself as a dealer and whether the respondent had jurisdiction to invoke the powers of search and seizure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Chapter V are applicable to all dealers to whom the charging section of the Act applies, regardless of registration under the Act. The court also emphasized the mandatory requirements of section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for forming a belief before embarking upon a search.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the seizure order dated August 3, 1984, was quashed. The respondent was directed to return the seized books and other documents to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order.
S. R. RAJASHEKARA MURTHY, J. - In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the seizure order made by the respondent in exercise of his power under section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act,1957 ("the Act"). On August 3, 1984, on information that the petitioner was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of cocoanuts at the premises in which he was residing and that he had evaded payment of tax to the Government, the respondent conducted a search of the premises. In the course of the search the respondent came certain books of account and loose slips which are listed in the seizure order (annexure A at SI. Nos. 1 to 6) and on being satisfied that petitioner had attempted to evade payment of tax, seized the books and other documents. This seizure is challenged by the petitioner on several grounds.
2. Sri Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following grounds :
That the petitioner is only an agriculturist and he was in his farm house house in R. S. Upparahatti, Hiriyur Taluk, in which he had stocked cocoanuts grown in his garden; that the petitioner was not carrying on business in purchase or sale of cocoanuts and, therefore, he is not a dealer within the of tram "dealer" as defined in section 2(1)(k) of the Act; that the petitioner, being not a dealer, he is not under obligation to register himself as a dealer under section 10 of the Act.
3. The further contention of the petitioner is that he, being not a dealer much less a "registered dealer", the respondent was not competent to invoke the provisions of section 28(3) and order of seizure made by him is illegal.
4. Elaborating his contentions Sri Gandhi submitted that in order to be a dealer under the Act a person must be carrying on business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods either for cash or deferred payment. According to the petitioner he is only an agriculturist and he was not carrying on any business of buying or selling and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirement of the definition of "dealer' under the Act.
5. The next argument advanced by Sri Gandhi is that there is no obligation on the petitioner to register himself as a dealer since he was not a dealer in the first instance and therefore non of the provisions of Chapter IV apply to him. It was authorised officers under section 28(3) of the Act can only be invoke in the case of a dealer and the respondent had no jurisdiction to invoke the powers under section 28(3) of the Act.
6. The next contention of the petitioner is that the manner in which the power conferred under section 28(3) was exercised by the respondent, is contrary to the mandatory requirements of section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr. P.C.") and hence the seizure order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed.
7. Sri Shimoga Subbanna, the learned Government pleader, produced before me the original records relating to the search conducted by the respondent. It is seen that the respondent embarked upon the search of the petitioner's premises on the strength of a signed petition given by some of the residents of the Upparahatti village stating that the petitioner was using his farms house for carrying on business of purchase and sale of cocoantus and had evaded payment of tax to the Government. In the seizure order it is also stated that the seizure was made on the basis of confidential enquire conducted and investigation made by him. After the respondent conducted the search on August 3, 1984, he drew up a mahazar and seized certain account books and loose slips referred to inseizure order (annexure A).
8. Statement of objection is filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the petitioner had stored huge quantity of cocoanuts and the said premises were being used for the purpose of business also. The seizure order is sought to be justified on the basis of the information gathered by the respondent in the course of the enquiry and investigation conducted by hi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
