2019 (11) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners' business between 14.07.2015 to 19.09.2015. 2. According to the petitioner, the conduct of the aforesaid audit was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. 3. The petitioner relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1757 of 2019, dated 04.06.2019, wherein the Division Bench upholds the order of a learned Single Judge quashing the audit conducted by the Commercial Taxes Department on the ground that authorisation approval for the search dated 16.05.2014 was bad in law. Consequently, all orders based on such approval are also bad in law, and liable to be set aside. At this juncture, Mr. Mohd. Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader brings to the notice o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Travel Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (45 S.T.R. 493), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court states on this very point, as follows:- 'The writ petitioner is aggrieved by issue of the show-cause notice dated 21-4-2016. It is contended that this show-cause notice is untenable besides the fact that the authority issuing it does not possess necessary jurisdiction to do so. 2. The last ground urged in support of the petition is that showcause notice is time-barred. 3. The petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Travelite (India) v. Union of India, 2014 (35) S.T.R. 653 (Del.) by which Rule 5A(2) of the Amended Service [Tax] Rules was held to be ultra vires its parent statute - Finance Act, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned show-cause notice was issued could not have been used is rejected. 6. As far as the issue of jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner (auditor who issued show-cause goes), the court notices that there is no denial of the fact that the official who issued the show cause notice holds the rank of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise as defined by the Central Excise Act, 1944 read along with the rules. That he was assigned audit task is a matter of convenience; it in no way inhibits the officer from issuing the showcause notice is exercise of primary authority concerned by the statute. Consequently, the argument about lack of authority/jurisdiction fails. So far as the last issue, i.e. of limitation is concerned, we are of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he user, for the purpose of assessment, of the photostat copies of the originals seized illegally. We have a line of cases in this court consistently taking the view that though the illegally seized documents have been made use of in a revenue assessment, the order of assessment on that ground will not be rendered illegal or void, because admissibility of such documents does not depend upon the source or the manner in which they are obtained, but on the relevancy and their admissibility. One of the earliest cases holding that view is Annamalai Chettiar & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 S.T.C. 687, decided by one of us. The view was rested on the ratio of Kuruma v. Queen [1955] A.C. 197. But Mr. Venugopal's contention is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterpreted by the American Courts in a slightly different way, but not always consistently. In any case, as we have already indicated, the same principle which holds valid an order which has used illegally seized documents informs the permissibility of the user of such documents in the process of making an assessment order. That principle is inherent in Kuruma v. Queen [1955] A.C. 197 and also R.S. Jhaver v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1965] 16 S.T.C. 708 and all the subsequent cases which followed that principle. In fact, it seems to us that the question is concluded by Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 I.T.R. 505 (S.C). That was a case of an illegal seizure in connection with income-tax proceedings. Among others, one of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to above, is reported in [1969] 71 I.T.R. 550. We understand that an appeal had been filed to this court but was not prosecuted. That decision not only upheld the constitutionality of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, but also held that there was nothing in Article 19 of the Constitution which forbids the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search. Consistently with that view the relief for a writ of prohibition was rejected and hence the two civil appeals before us. Then the Court went on to further deal with this matter and then observed: It, therefore, follows that neither by invoking the spirit of our Constitution nor by a strained construction of any of the fundamental rights can we spell out the exclusion of evid....