CHANDRAKANT KOHANLAL SOMAIYA Vs. DINESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARING counsel on either side and going through the petition and the detailed affidavit-in-reply as also the rejoinder, we are satisfied that this is not a case warranting interference in our writ jurisdiction.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further we may mention that on the very first date of the hearing the petitioner appeared in person before us and made a categorical statement that this petition was not filed by him voluntarily, but it was under compulsion of other person. The apart, the detailed affidavit-in-reply discloses a shocking state of affairs and big fraud involving evasion of sales tax to the tune of lakhs of rupees. When the officers visited the petitioner's declared place of residence it was found that the petitioner was not staying there at all, but one Manilal D. Joshi along with his wife and four children was residing there for the last five years. This Manilal's statement has been recorded and has also been annexed as exhibit A to the reply. Subsequently when the petitioner was personally contacted by the Sales Tax Officer, he stated that he had no personal knowledge of the details of the business being carried out in his name. Recorded statement of the petitioner further stated that he was working for M/s. Raj Oil Company, Surat, of one Rajubhai Shah on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200. It was at the instance of this Rajubhai shah that he came to Palghar and obtained a sales tax registration number, as per the instructions given to him by Rajubhai. He also stated that all the bill books, delivery challans and letter-heads were not printed by Rajubhai. The petitioner was made to open account in the Bank of Baroda, mandavi Branch, and in the Union Bank at Vasai.

(3.) THE Sales Tax Officer visiting the premises also found unused blank bill books as also blank cheque books and about 200 statutory declaration forms with the stamp of the dealers thereof erased. Several other facts and circumstances disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply fully justified the action in exercise of powers under section 39 (1a) of the Sales Tax Act.