AMRITSAR BEVERAGE LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 14659, 14666, 14667 and 14713 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the purpose of convenience, reference may be made to the facts of C.W.P. No. 14659 of 2003.

(2.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the impounded books/documents/computer parts, seized on August 7, 2002 from the premises of the petitioner under section 14 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It was alleged in the petition that on August 7, 2002 various books/documents, etc., were seized by the officers of the sales tax department when they visited the business premises of the petitioner. It was further alleged that the aforesaid impounding was done by the officers of the sales tax department under section 14 of the Act. It was alleged that under section 14(3) of the Act, it is provided that officer seizing the books, accounts, registers or documents shall return the books, etc., which were being used at the time of seizing within a period of ten days from the date of seizure and in other cases within sixty days from the date of seizure. It was alleged that almost a year had passed when the books, etc., were impounded and taken by the officers of the sales tax department but the same have not been returned to the petitioner inspite of the facts that petitioner had served notice dated November 21, 2002 followed by registered reminder dated January 11, 2003 copies annexures P2 and P3.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the promises of the petitioner was checked on August 7, 2002 and various books of accounts, etc., were taken away by the officers of the sales tax department have not been disputed. Even the receipt of the notices dated November 21, 2002 and January 11, 2003 had not been disputed. In fact, this allegation of the petitioner was specifically admitted by the respondents. The only ground taken by the respondents in the reply was that petitioner was given various opportunities to appear and get the seized documents verified so that the same could be returned to it against proper receipt but inspite of that the petitioner had failed to appear before the concerned authorities. Copies of the notices dated June 23, 2003, July 16, 2003 and September 18, 2003 were attached with the written statement, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, alongwith accounts books for verification of the impounded documents and also to provide trading account for the current financial year upto the date of inspection.