2019 (2) TMI 390 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – TMI – Jurisdiction – power of respondent to seal the business premises – access to the business premises was not denied by the petitioner – software stopped functioning all of a sudden along with internet connection abruptly. – seeking co-operation from the assessee for inspection/search of the computer system and other records available in the premises – Held that:- Section 67[4] of the Act contemplates that the officer authorized under Sub-section [2] shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied.
–
This Court is of the considered view that the justice would be sub-served in directing the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on 05.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., which is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t. Ltd. The two companies are promoted by the same individuals though belongs to same family. It transpires that the respondent officers along with team of officers visited the registered office of the petitioner at Jigani, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. It is contended that due to administrative convenience, the day-to-day business activities of the petitioner were also being carried out from the premises of M/s. Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, at go-down of the petitioner building situated at Sy.No.184, Khaneshumari 5371 to 6, Jigani Main Road, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Considering the same, the respondent officials begun conducting the search in the said premises. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent officers have sealed the said premises without authority of law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent issued authorization of search on 08.01.2019 on a suspicion that the directors would be involved in circular trading
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
zation issued, the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails. 6. Section 67[4] of the Act contemplates that the officer authorized under Sub-section [2] shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied. 7. It is the contention of the Revenue that the books of accounts of some other companies were maintained in the premises where the inspection was carried on. However, the computer system wherein the business transaction of the company was stored, including the tally software stopped functioning all of a sudden along with internet connection abruptly. In the absence of tally information and internet connection, complete verification of the books of accounts of the company was not possible as the same
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =