TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember 13, 2010, at 5 p. m., in the absence of proprietor of the petitioner-firm, some officials of the Department of the Excise and Taxation sealed the premises of the petitioner and took signatures of its Class IV employee, Mr. Bobby on blank papers. Photographs of the seal have been filed as annexure P4. The petitioner visited the Department but could not get any response. It filed C.W.P. No. 17442 of 2010 in this court which was disposed of on September 27, 2010 as premature with a direction that if a representation was made within one week, the concerned authority may take decision thereon within 10 days thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation dated September 29, 2010 annexure P6 addressed, inter alia, to the Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rection that if a representation is filed within one week, decision thereon be taken within 10 days. The petitioner made representation dated September 29, 2010 but no decision was taken thereon till the filing of the writ petition on November 8, 2010. The photographs have been annexed to show that the premises of the petitioner were sealed. 3. Notice was issued by this court on November 9, 2010, in response to which, learned counsel for the State says that the decision on the representation of the petitioner was taken on October 21, 2010 and it was held that the Department had never sealed the shop. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the material on record,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... engaged in making ingenuine transactions. FIR was lodged against M/s. Hitanshu Sales Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh. A team of officers was deputed on September 13, 2010 to visit the premises of the petitioner to verify its transactions and statement of one Mr. Bobby was recorded and certain documents were impounded. Representation dated September 29, 2010 against locking and sealing of the premises was received, which was disposed of on October 21, 2010 which order was personally received by the petitioner as per entry in the despatch register at No. 3032/October 21, 2010. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of order dated November 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment and representation was duly decided on October 21, 2010 and the said order was despatched and conveyed to the petitioner. In support of this submission, a photo copy of the relevant entry from the despatch register has been relied upon and the original despatch register has also been produced. After due consideration of the rival stands, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the stand taken in the affidavit of Mr. Rishi Pal Singh is false. The case of the petitioner is that a team of the Department visited the petitioner's premises on September 13, 2010 and illegally sealed the same. It is not disputed that the said team had visited the premises but sealing has been denied. Proceedings at the time of visit have not been produce....