DHANANI SHOES LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No.1, namely, M/s. Dhanani Shoes Ltd, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company is registered both under the Central Sales Act, 1956, as well as the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, 'the Act'). The petitioner company deals in plastic and leather footwear, sports goods, readymade garments and allied business. The petitioner company is distributor, in the entire North-Eastern India, of some classified products, namely, Liberty, Action, Hotshot, Woodland, Levis, Lakhani, etc. The petitioner No.2, accounts officer of the petitioner company, is the authorized signatory of the company. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of stocking and selling, in wholesale as well as retail, of different varieties of shoes. On 06.02.2008, respondent No.4, namely, Inspector of Tax, Unit-B, Guwahati, came to inspect the petitioner company's godown at Dhirenpara, Guwahati, and served, on the petitioner company, a notice, dated 06.02.2008, issued under Section 74(1) of the Act, and demanded that the petitioner company shall produce or cause to be produced all necessary documents related to the books of accounts, on 06.02.2008 itself, in order to ascertain the taxes payable by the petitioner company. Respondent No.4 also seized, vide two seizure lists, stock of goods, documents, stock register, other registers and books relating to the business of the petitioner company. At the time of the said seizure, the petitioner company had, in their stock, both plastic as well as leather goods. While the plastic goods are taxable at the rate of 4% of its value, the leather goods are taxable at the rate of 12%.

(2.) By making a writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No.1050/2008, the petitioners had impugned the said notice and also seizures of the books of accounts and goods by the respondent No.4 on the ground, inter alia, that the notice aforementioned as well as seizures of the goods and also of the books of accounts were without the authority of law and, hence, without jurisdiction.

(3.) When the writ petition was taken up for motion hearing, it was submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the writ petition be taken up for final disposal at the motion stage itself. To the submissions so made, no objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition was accordingly heard for final disposal at the motion stage itself.