TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (8) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act had been granted to it. On 16th June, 1970, an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer attached to the Intelligence Wing at Berhampur (opposite party No. 4) visited the petrol station. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that both the partners were absent at the relevant time and a watchman was in actual charge at the spot. A younger brother of the partners was in the office close-by. It is alleged that opposite party No. 4 was allowed to enter into the premises and inspect the books of accounts in the manner he liked; yet a report was made by opposite party No. 4 both to the local police as also to the Commercial Tax Officer that while opposite party No. 4 tried to seize some of the accounts of the petitioner-firm he was resisted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the evidence of the witness was utilised though in spite of the prayer of the petitioner he was not offered for cross-examination so that the evidence could be tested. Mr. Mohanty, subsequently, did not press his contention regarding special authorisation in view of the definition of "Commercial Tax Officer" in section 2(a-2) of the Act. Indisputably, opposite party No. 4 had been appointed to discharge the functions of a Commercial Tax Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and, therefore, automatically became a Commercial Tax Officer for the purposes of the 1946 Act. 3.. The learned standing counsel does not dispute the fact that under the Act there is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the said person-in-charge and your younger brother obstructed the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing) from seizing the five note books and the written loose papers." In his appellate order, opposite party No. 1 in paragraph 4 has stated: "The Commercial Tax Officer waited there up to 5 p.m. When he wanted to seize the five note books and loose sheets containing alleged information of the appellant's clandestine dealings in petrol and K. oil, he was obstructed to do so by the person-in-charge of the petrol pump assisted by one of the brothers of the appellant." Even in the counter-affidavit of opposite party No. 4 in paragraph 9, it has been stated: "That in reply to the averments made in para 7 of the writ app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed cannot be taken to be a breach under section 8(1)(b) of the Act read with rule 17 of the Rules. Once the finding is that opposite party No. 4 was trying to seize the records without authority of law, the petitioner or his men were entitled to resist such illegal action. 6.. The next question for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to have confrontation of the witness whose statement had been relied upon. We do not have the original order of cancellation of registration. Neither side has produced it. In the appellate order, however, it has been indicated that it was not necessary for the department to produce the witness for confrontation. 7.. The learned standing counsel relies upon the allegation made in the....