Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1973 DIGILAW 249 (KAR)

R. G. ATTAR AND SONS v. ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHIKODI

1973-09-10

K.J.SHETTY

body1973
( 1 ) THE petitioner was a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. On 28-7- 1969 the second Despondent visited the business premises of the petitioner and took away several account books. The petitioner made repeated representations for the return of the said books, but that was not acceded to. On 22-8-1970 the second respondent made an order under S. 28 (3) of the mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, seizing the account books. Against that order, the petitioner appealed before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes (Appeals), Dharwar. By the order dt. 2-7-1971 the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of seizure. Even thereafter the second respondent did - not return the account books. Very strangely, again on 10-8-1971 the first respondent made an order Seizing the said account books. This is the order which has been challenged in this writ petition. ( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the account books were taken away by the second respondent when he visited the business premises of the petitioner on 28-7-1969. The subsequent order made by the second respondent for the seizure of the said books was set aside by the competent appellate authority. Consequently he ought to have returned the account books following the decision of the appellate authority. Instead, the first respondent made a further order seizing the very same account books. This is really an abuse of the power which has been conferred on the respondents. ( 3 ) SRI Chandrakantraj Urs, learned High Court Government Advocate prayed for some time to file a counter-affidavit in the case. The petition is of the year 1971. In fact, his similar request was granted on 19th june, 1973. No counter has been filed yet. Therefore, I see no justification in granting him any more time. ( 4 ) THE order impugned is ex-fade unsustainable. ( 5 ) IN the result, I allow the writ petition and quash the order made by the first respondent on 10-8-1971 with a direction to him to return the account books of the petitioner which were seized under the said order. No costs. --- *** --- .