SIVARAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I shall state the facts in O. P. No. 5084 of 1989, as that is the case which arises seriously for consideration.

(2.) On September 24, 1987 the intelligence wing of the Sales Tax Department conducted a search of the business premises of the firm, as also in building No.X/175, stated to be the residence of the petitioner. The search was simultaneous and was conducted "at the business premises by the Intelligence Officer, Alapuzha, and at the residence by the Intelligence Officer, Kottayam, wham I shall hereinafter refer as the Alappuzha and Kottayam Officers respectively for purposes of convenience. Three pocket diaries marked for identification as A, B and C and 733 slips were seized from building No. X/175, as stated in the Shop Inspection Report. Ext. P-1(b) prepared by the Kottayam Officer, of which a copy was served on spot on the petitioner's son S. Gopalakrishnan, a partner of the firm who was present at the time of the search. The Kottayam Officer thereafter called upon the dealer to produce its books of account for the year 1987-88 along with the other details called for by his notice Ext. P-3 dated October 7, 1987, on October 17, 1987. Two of the partners Saravanan and Gopalakrishnan appeared with the accounts on the date notified in response to this notice. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was then found necessary to verify the accounts for 1985-86 and 1986-87 as well, as some of the seized slips related to those years. The books for those years were accordingly produced and verified on 22nd, 27th and 28th October, 1987 and December 29, 1987, in the presence of the partners. The Kottayam Officer, thereafter issued the notice Ext. P-3 on January 21, 1988 alleging irregularities in the accounts as also stock venation at the time of inspection, and calling upon the dealer to show cause why penalty in the sums mentioned may not be imposed oil it for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, under S.45A of the Act for failure to maintain true and complete accounts, with a view to evade payment of tax due to the State.

(3.) The petitioner replied by Ext. P-4, denying inter alia the seizure of records from his residence, as also the charge of non maintenance of true and complete accounts. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Kottayam Officer to levy penalty when the search of the business premises was by the Alappuzha Officer. In addition, he also requested for being furnished with photostat copies of the seized records, to enable him to give a detailed and effective reply.