TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Limits Sales Tax Department Inspections</h1> The court held that the Sales Tax Department's continuous watch over the hotels exceeded permissible inspection under section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh ... - Issues:1. Whether the Sales Tax Department's continuous watch over the business of the hotels is justified under section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.2. Whether the actions of the Sales Tax Authorities amount to surveillance and harassment of the hotels.Analysis:The petition challenged the Sales Tax Department's continuous supervision of the business activities of the petitioners' hotels, alleging surveillance and harassment. The Sales Tax Authorities defended their actions, stating that the intensive watch was in line with section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to ensure correct turnover assessment. The Sales Tax Officers claimed that the watch was conducted to inspect sales in hotels effectively. The petitioners contended that the continuous watch interfered with their business and sought a writ to stop the supervision.The court analyzed section 28(2) of the Sales Tax Act, which allows inspection of accounts, goods, and premises of a dealer. The court rejected the argument that inspection was limited to goods only, emphasizing that the authorities could inspect offices, shops, and godowns. However, the court distinguished between inspection and continuous watch, noting that continuous surveillance was not authorized. The court held that 'reasonable time' for inspection did not mean continuous monitoring from morning till night, as it could interfere with the business and cause loss to the petitioners.The court concluded that the Sales Tax Authorities' actions went beyond inspection and amounted to surveillance and harassment. The court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to conduct inspections at reasonable times but not to keep a continuous watch over the hotels. The court emphasized that while the Department had the right to visit the premises, continuous supervision was not permissible. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
