Nikunjam Constructions PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayers to the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 2nd Respondent to rerun the original of the records covered by Ext.P2 recovered at the time of inspection on 30-08-2014 to the petitioner at the earliest, as the statutory period of retention of records seized during an inspection has already expired; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a verification of the seized records in the presence of the petitioner and offer the petitioner an opportunity to explain the entries in the seized records and not to proceed further based on Ext.P4 to Ext.P4(b) pending such verification and getting the explanation of the petitioner with regard to such records covered by Ext.P2; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1st Respondent not to proceed further based on Ext.P8 pending return of the records covered by Ext.P2 and finalization of the proceedings covered by Ext.P4 to Ext.P4(b) after verification of the records in the presence of the presence of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law;”

The petitioner through Exts.P11 and P12 requested the 2nd respondent to examine the seized records including the CD in the presence of the Authorized Representative of the petitioner. The reason for making a request for verification of record in the presence of Authorized Representative of petitioner is that, the petitioner would have opportunity to explain the omissions or commissions if any otherwise erroneously noticed by the 2nd respondent without further enquiry in this behalf.

The learned Government Pleader does not oppose the prayer for verification of record in the presence of Authorized Representative of petitioner. The writ petition hence is disposed by this order. The 2nd respondent considers the request of the petitioner made through Exts.P11 and P12, intimates a particular day and time to the petitioner for undertaking the verification of record in the presence of Authorized Representative of petitioner- Company. The petitioner is given liberty to communicate a copy of this order and also inform the name, designation etc. of Authorized Representative attending the verification within two weeks from today. The 2nd respondent undertakes and also completes the exercise directed by this order as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of intimation from the petitioner. Till the inspection is completed, the 1st respondent is directed to not to proceed with the steps pursuant to Ext.P8. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS/01.04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT DATED 30.8.2014. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.8.2014 FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE RECORDS. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER S. 67 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF NOTICES DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER S. 67 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P4 B COPY OF NOTICES DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER S. 67 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 2.3.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.3.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.3.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 25 (1) OF THE ACT EXHIBIT P9 COOY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-03-2019 ADDRESSED TO HTE 2ND RESPONDENT.