TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (5) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gave out that he was the brother of one of the partners (Sri R.P. Gupta). It is said that while accounts were being scrutinised, Sri R.P. Gupta also reached there. He was asked to affix his signatures upon two copy books which were found at the time of survey and had been signed by the Surveying Officer. Instead, however, of signing and returning them to the Surveying Officer Sri R.P. Gupta is said to have handed over those copy books to a munim and asked him to run away with them. The munim did so. The copy books contained entries relating to business transactions of the dealer. Sri Gupta refused to sign the survey note as well. A notice was served upon the dealer to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him under section 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., payable by him............................ ........................ (vi) In a case referred to in clause (h) or clause (j), a sum not exceeding Rs. 5,000; and ............................ (2) ............................ (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) unless the dealer or other person concerned has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) ............................ (5) ............................ ............................" Section 13 of the Act, inter alia, provides that an authorised officer may require any dealer to produce before him any book, document or account relating to his business and may inspect, examine and copy the same. He may seize them too ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horised officer from utilising a book, document or account relating to the dealer's business for purposes of enquiry into his liability for payment of tax would be included within the ambit of obstruction or prevention by him of an officer from performing his functions under the Act. In Phudki v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 All 104 this Court was called upon to decide whether running away of a person from arrest would amount to voluntary obstruction by him of any public servant in the discharge of his public functions within the meaning of section 186, Indian Penal Code. This Court took the view that it did not. For, in the opinion of Mukerji, J., who decided that case, merely running away from arrest did not amount to obstruction and that "o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....racter. The minimum requirement of reasonable opportunity envisaged by sub-section (3) of section 15-A, in the context, is that the person proceeded against must be clearly told the accusation which is to be met by him. The act or omission on the basis whereof lie is said to have rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty must be specifically disclosed to him. Then alone would he be able to put forward his defence. In other words, the opportunity contemplated by sub-section (3) has to be an effective one. That it can only be when the person sought to be penalised knows what is the lapse attributed to him for rendering himself liable for penalty. The Tribunal has found that all that was contained in the notice served upon the appli....