SUMIT AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the action of the respondent No.3, the Excise & Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Ludhiana, whereby two cheques bearing Nos.053461 & 053462, amounting to Rs. 3 lacs each, were taken from the petitioner, without any liability and notice. Prayer is, accordingly, made for conducting an independent and impartial enquiry on the ground that there was no order against the petitioner and in the absence of the liability, the cheques could not be taken.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of supply of cigarette, biddi, pan masala etc. and duly registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, the 'PVAT') and was not a defaulter. It has been alleged that respondent No.3, Navjeet Singh, the Excise & Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Ludhiana, who has been impleaded in his personal capacity, came to his premises on 16.02.2015 and threatened him and demanded exorbitant amounts with the help of police. The cheques in question amounting to Rs. 3 lacs each were taken despite the fact that no notice had ever been issued and under the threat of coercion on account of completion of target of Revenue before 31.03.2015. The said respondent had also taken the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers and thereafter, encashed one cheque bearing No.053461 on 21.02.2015, as per the bank's statement. Thereafter, notice had been served upon the petitioner on 09.03.2015 to which a reply had been filed that the two cheques were forcibly taken and one of the cheque, amounting to Rs. 3 lacs had already been encashed and the payment of the second cheque had been stopped by the petitioner. Resultantly, the present writ petition has been filed for the necessary relief, mentioned above.

(3.) In the written statement, filed by the said respondent No.3 on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, the defence taken was that there was prior permission of the Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Ludhiana and inspection was conducted along with other officers and supporting team. The Proprietor of the Firm, namely, Harish Kumar, had run away and the local police was called and he had returned with some person and thereafter, inspection was carried out in his presence and two cheques were taken as anticipatory tax liability because huge stock of goods were found, without any documents. The proceedings were in progress and many irregularities were found and true and correct account had not been maintained resulting in evasion of tax. Several discrepancies were pointed out and the plea taken was that the cheques were submitted voluntarily at the time of inspection. Thereafter, one of the cheque was encashed with full knowledge as the petitioner had desired to discharge his anticipated liability in parts. Notice had been issued to the petitioner for provisional assessment of the income under the PVAT Act.