DHANANI SHOES LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1, namely, M/s. Dhanani Shoes Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner -company is registered both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as well as the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the Act"). The petitioner -company deals in plastic and leather footwear, sports goods, ready -made garments and allied business. The petitioner -company is distributor, in the entire North -Eastern India, of some classified products, namely, Liberty, Action, Hotshot, Woodland, Levis, Lakhani, etc. The petitioner No. 2, accounts officer of the petitioner -company, is the authorised signatory of the company. The petitioner -company is engaged in the business of stocking and selling, in wholesale as well as retail, of different varieties of shoes. On February 6, 2008, respondent No. 4, namely, Inspector of Tax, Unit B, Guwahati, came to inspect the petitioner -company's godown at Dhirenpara, Guwahati, and served, on the petitioner -company, a notice, dated February 6, 2008 issued under Section 74(1) of the Act and demanded that the petitioner -company shall produce or cause to be produced all necessary documents related to the books of account, on February 6, 2008 itself, in order to ascertain the taxes payable by the petitioner -company. Respondent No. 4 also seized, vide two seizure lists, stock of goods, documents, stock register, other registers and books relating to the business of the petitioner -company. At the time of the said seizure, the petitioner -company had, in their stock, both plastic as well as leather goods. While the plastic goods are taxable at the rate of four per cent of their value, the leather goods are taxable at the rate of 12 per cent.

(2.) BY making this writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the said notice and also seizures of the books of account and goods by respondent No. 4 on the ground, inter alia, that the notice aforementioned as well as seizures of the goods and also of the books of account were without the authority of law and, hence, without jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.