ASHOKA AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered firm having its place of business at L-7/2, Bistupur Bazar, P.S.Bistupur in the town of Jamshedpur. By this Criminal writ application the petitioner challenges the authority and jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle Jamshedpur) to seize the items described in Annexure-2, in exercise of his power under Section 31(5)(a) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (in short the Finance Act) and the order dated 5.10.94 (Annexure-6) passed under Section 33(5)(b) of the Act whereby a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,15,893.45 has been imposed on the firm. The circumstances leading to the present proceeding may be stated in brief. The petitioner firm has separate place of business, one at Bistupur and other at Parsudih Market Yard. Both the places are registered under the Finance Act. The Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax has permitted the firm to keep the Accounts jointly.

(2.) ON 26.9.94, third respondent inspected the business premises of the petitioner and having detected certain irregularities in maintenance of accounts, placed the following items under seizure: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_124_TLPAT0_1995.htm</FRM>

(3.) SHRI Gododia, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that seizure and penalty are all illegal and arbitrary. He endavoured to demonstrate this by reference to facts asserted under paras 16 to 22 and 25 of the application. He contended that the show cause notice served on the petitioner was vague. Therefore, the petitioner could not file an effective reply. He submitted that notice was not in terms of Rule 19 of the Sales Tax Rules. Shri Gadodia argued that the third respondent has given no cogent reason for rejecting the claim in respect of the mustered oil and sunflower oil as also the phenyl. He further submitted that he committed grave error in relying on the maximum price printed on the tin in order to determine the liability of the petitioner.