AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Intelligence Officer in obtaining the statement and collecting a sum of Rs. 9,710/- in respect of the liability of tax as stated in the Statement.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no sale and it is also not known as to whom the copy of the Letter-Head belongs.
From Annexure-A, it transpires that, on inspection of the business premises of the petitioner was carried on 20-1-1997 and it was found from the copy of the Letter-head that some business transaction dated 29-6-1996 of the value of Rs. 80,664-25p. was recorded. It was further found that, for the transaction of Rs. 40,842-25p; Rs. 10,995/- ; and Rs. 80,664-25p. bills have not been raised by the petitioner. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 1,32,500/- , for which Bills were not issued. According to the statement recorded, the petitioner was agreeable to pay tax on the turnover of Rs. 1,01,237/- which was computed at Rs. 9,719/- , for which, a cheque dated 25-2-1997 was given. The petitioner has undertaken to produce Form 3 and sale and purchase register before the concerned officer within three days. It is stated that thereafter, no notice was received from the Department. The cheque has already been encashed.
Arguments of both the learned Counsels for the parties have been heard. If the statements were not correctly recorded or the letter-head or the papers were not pertaining to the business of the petitioner, the petitioner should have recorded that fact in his statement. It is possible as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the statement might have been given under some fear. After the officer had gone from checking, it was the duty of the petitioner to bring out correct fact before the higher authorities or even to file a criminal complaint against the officer on the basis that the statements were recorded under duress. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine the fact as to whether the statement is voluntary or under duress. Since no evidence has come on record to prove the statement as involuntary, no interference can be made in the proceedings recording the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner had also retained a copy while giving the statement as mentioned in the statement itself. Now the Assessing Authority is supposed to frame the assessment as the year has already come to an end.
It is also stated that the cheque was collected forcibly. This contention cannot be considered to be proper, because, the petitioner himself has signed the cheque which was post-dated and in the statement, he has stated that he has given the cheque of tax amount. No protest was made nor was the information to the Bank given and the amount so collected now has to be adjusted with the total liability.
The proposition notice giving all the details has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter action for assessment may be taken up. If the order is passed against the petitioner, he would be free to challenge the same in appeal. No case for interference is made out. No relief can be given by this Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.