M/s. Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aditional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Enforcement, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
GST
2019 (2) TMI 389 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 10 (Kar.) , [2019] 64 G S.T.R. 462 (Kar)
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 31-1-2019
Writ Petition No. 2254/2019 (T – RES)
GST
Mrs. Justice S. Sujatha
For The Petitioner : Sri Nandakumar, Adv. For Sri Nischal Dev.B.R., ADV.
For The Respondents : Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA.
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 09.01.2019 under Section 67[4] of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 /Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['Act' for short].
3. The petitioner company is claiming to be a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and a dealer registered
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sued authorization of search on 08.01.2019 on a suspicion that the directors would be involved in circular trading with other companies located in Bengaluru and Hosur. Mere suspicion is not suffice for issuing any authorization. The authorization order does not authorize the officer who had pass the order impugned, under Section 67[4] of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 67 [4] of the Act does not empower the respondent No.3 to seal the business premises since access to the business premises was not denied by the petitioner as reflected in the order impugned.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Revenue has made available the original file before the Court, wherein an authorization in the prescribed format – GST INS-1 has been issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enforcement], South Zone, Bangalore on 08.01.2019 authorizing Sri.J.J.Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enf], SZ-17, VTK-2, Koramangala, Ba
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
internet connection, complete verification of the books of accounts of the company was not possible as the same was maintainedin the tally software in the server. The directors of the petitioner company did not put any efforts to set out the said disruption. There being denial of access to the computer system, Section 67[4] was invoked to seal the premises in question.
8. However, learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions of the respondent No.3 – Sri.J.J.Prakash, who is present before the Court, fairly submits that the premises of the petitioner company in question shall be unsealed/de-sealed in the presence of the petitioner on any date convenient to the petitioner subject to the petitioner co-operating for inspection/search of the computer system and other records available in the premises.
9. The said submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate is placed on record.
10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the justice would be s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =