Petitioner | Sanjay Trading Company |
Respondent | State Of Madhya Pradesh |
Decision by | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
Date of order or Judgement | 11-May-2022 |
Citation no. | WRIT PETITION NO.9898 OF 2022 2022 (5) GSTPanacea 19 HC Madhya Pradesh |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice Sheel Nagu |
Decision | In Favour of Revenue |
Re-measuring Of Stock-Madhya Pradesh HC refuses re-measuring of stock as independent witness as well as petitioner’s own witness does not raise any objection. Also there was no question of any kind of seizure.
Re-measuring Of Stock-Facts of the Case
Re-measuring Of Stock-The premises of the petitioner was searched at the instance of the revenue u/s 67 of the M.P. GST Act,2017 and thereafter the aggrieved petitioner made an application and prayed that stock of coal lying in the premises be measured and checked again as earlier, the team which carried out the search did not seize any material and left the premises.
Argument Before Court
Re-measuring of Stock-Petitioner’s Contention
Re-measuring Of Stock-The petitioner submitted that the order was being assailed as the search was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017.
The procedure as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is applicable which stipulates the search is required to be carried out in the presence of two witnesses.
In the present case, no independent witnesses were present and the respondent did not seize any material from the premises of the petitioner, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Revenue to remeasure the stock of coal lying in the premises.
In the present case there was no satisfaction arrived at by the Commissioner State Tax, while authorizing the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to carry out the search. The petitioner submits that the authority should have recorded the reasons which necessitated the search in the premises of the present case.
Re-measuring Of Stock-Respondent’s Argument
Re-measuring Of Stock-The department submits that the entire procedure was carried out in accordance with the law and the search was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses.
The nephew of petitioner was also available at the time of search and signed the Panchnama, therefore the petitioner cannot allege that the search was carried out in violation of statutory provisions.
The department further submits that during the course of the search, the liability was admitted by the petitioner itself and therefore, the action to challenge the process was grossly misconceived.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Held
Re-measuring Of Stock-The court held that the punchnama was produced on record by the petitioner itself.
The panchnama revealed that a search team had reached the premises of the petitioner and at the premises, two persons, namely Anil kumar Dahiya and Arvind Patel including the nephew of the proprietor, were available and signatures of all the people were obtained while carrying out the Panchnama and then the stocks were checked there only thus there was no question of any kind of search.
It was found that there were discrepancies in the stock which attracted the levy of tax. Hence, the petitioner out of his own free will deposited the amount of tax as well as a penalty of Rs.38,46,195/-.
Moreover, there were independent witnesses as well as the petitioner own representatives who did not raise any objection as regards search, thus, filing of the application before respondent No.5 to re-measure the stock was an afterthought.
Therefore, there is no infirmity as far as the order/letter impugned are concerned and accordingly the present petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Download PDF
Sanjay Trading Company
For Reference Visit:
Madhya Pradesh High Court