SHYAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is the proprietor of VIP Home, situated at Anand Bazar, Main Road, Ranchi, has by means of this writ application under article 226 questioned the validity of seizure, conducted on October 10, 1995, by respondent Nos. 3 to 6, of several documents including books of accounts, sale register, etc. , relating to various transactions, as also for quashing the notice issued under section 33 (5) (b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (in short "the Act"), whereby, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why a penalty be not imposed as per the provision of law. By an amendment petition, a prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated October 16, 1995, whereby, respondent No. 4 in exercise of his power, conferred under section 33 (5) (b) of the Act has imposed penalty to the extent of three times, amounting to Rs. 19,068 (rupees nineteen thousand and sixty eight only ).

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the business premises admittedly situated within the jurisdiction of East Circle, Ranchi, the Commercial Taxes Officers, South Circle and West Circle, had no jurisdiction to raid the shop and make seizure. It has been stated that a bare reference to the notification, contained in annexure 3, would reveal that the territorial jurisdiction of the various authorities as per the provisions of section 9 of the Act, has been specifically carved out. The shop of the petitioner is lying within the jurisdiction of East Circle and the authorities empowered under section 9 of the Act are Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi East Circle, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ranchi East Circle and Commercial Taxes Officer, Ranchi East Circle. Similarly with respect to other circles different officers have been delegated with such power. Therefore, respondents 5 and 6 had no jurisdiction to take part in seizure of different articles of the shop in question and to issue notice, etc.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that in view of the final order, having been passed under section 33 (5) (b) of the Act, the petitioner has got equally efficacious and alternative remedy of statutory appeal under section 45 of the Act, therefore, the present writ application is not maintainable.