9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the final judgment dated February 13, 2002 of the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.T.T. No. 32 of 2002, by which the High Court has dismissed the writ application of the appellants herein holding, inter alia, that sanction to retain the seized records was not in conformity with proviso (b) to section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act"). The respondent is a re-seller of "neutrela" soya beans food product, palm fatty acid distillate, acid oil and RBD palmolein oil after importing the same from outside the State of West Bengal as well as by making purchases within the State of West Bengal. On October 18, 2000, the files, books of account and documents kept at the place of the business of the respondent were sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 12, 2001 granted sanction for retention of the seized records till October 18, 2002 to enable the investigating officer to complete the examination of the seized records and the said order was sent to the respondent by Speed Post. The said sanction as well as show-cause notice were received by the respondent on October 22, 2001. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, the respondent filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, Calcutta (for short, "the Tribunal") being Revision Case No. RN 450 of 2001, seeking a direction to the assessing officer to forthwith release the books of account, documents and records sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show cause as to why the seized records should not be retained beyond the period of one year. The said notice was admittedly received by the respondent on October 22, 2001 which was beyond the period of one year as prescribed by section 66, thus denying the respondent an opportunity of being heard which was the object of the notice. It was also held that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner granting sanction to retain the seized records, was sent to the respondent on October 18, 2001 which was received by him on October 22, 2001. It is not expected that an order dispatched on October 18, 2001 would be served on the same day. That the very purpose of issuance of such notice was frustrated as the respondent was left with no tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accounts, registers or documents seized by him under this section for a period exceeding one year from the date of the seizure unless he records in writing the reasons therefor, and (b) any person appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 to assist the Commissioner shall not retain any of the accounts, registers or documents seized by him under this section for a period exceeding one year from the date of the seizure unless he states the reason in writing therefor and obtains sanction of the Commissioner in writing in respect thereof." A reading of provisos (a) and (b) of section 66 makes it clear that either of the two conditions must be fulfilled before such extension is given, viz., (a) reasons in writing must be recorded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich it might be based should be communicated to the concerned person but in our view since the person concerned is bound to be materially prejudiced in the enforcement of his right to have such books and documents returned to him by being kept ignorant about the factum of fulfilment of either of the conditions, it is obligatory upon the Revenue to communicate the Commissioner's approval as also the recorded reasons to the person concerned. In the absence of such communication the Commissioner's decision according his approval will not become effective." No doubt it is laid down in this judgment that the Commissioner's approval as also the recorded reasons may be communicated to the person whose books of account have been seized but it doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here. The High Court under some misconception assumed that this court had held that the reasons had to be communicated before the expiry of one year of the seizure of the books or documents and/or the assessee was required to be heard before passing the order extending the period beyond the prescribed period of one year. To that extent, the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Additional Commissioner while granting sanction to retain the seized records has not only recorded reasons therefor, but the same were communicated also in accordance with the judgment of this court in the case of Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 1 SCC 700 See [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC). Thus, the condition prescribed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
