9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cotton Street (first floor) and made a thorough search of the place of business. They seized some documents and papers under two seizure-receipts, one of the seizure-receipts being under the Act of 1941 and the other seizure-receipt being under the Act of 1954. The applicants allege that they are not "dealer" within the meaning of the Act of 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder and as such, the seizure of the documents by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, is without any authority of law, bad and illegal. It is alleged that on or about April 8, 1982, an order was passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation for retaining the books of accounts seized by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, till March 31, 1983 and that thereafter the books and documents are being retained by the respondents without any further sanction for retention of these books and documents. It is further alleged that after the seizure of the books and documents on March 12, 1982, notices were issued to the applicants on March 20, 1982 and thereafter on several dates, directing the applicants to appear with relevant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er bill or books of accounts. In view of these irregularities, the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, had reason to suspect that Messrs. Kailash Brothers of 72, Cotton Street was attempting to evade payment of sales tax under the Act of 1941 and the Act of 1954. Accordingly, he seized the available records and prepared a list of the goods then found at the godown of Messrs. Kailash Brothers. He also prepared a report which was countersigned by the representative of the applicants then present at the spot. It is alleged that as the applicants have been found to be indulging in the evasion of taxes imposed by the Act of 1941 and the Act of 1954, the specialised investigation unit of the Commercial Taxes Directorate had to move in accordance with the provisions of these two Acts in order to prevent the evasion of the payment of taxes imposed by these two Acts by the applicants. 4.. The applicants filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein it was alleged that the applicants could not take delivery of the consignment covered by the consignment note, bearing No. D-180421 dated March 1, 1982 of Patiala Transport Company (Regd.) in respect of dry fruits, due to seizure of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt note could not be imported into West Bengal from outside West Bengal by the applicants. On the basis of this solitary consignment note, the applicants cannot thus be stated to be the "dealer", as defined in section 2(b) of the Act of 1954. As the applicants cannot be said to be "dealer" within the meaning of the Act of 1954, there can be no search or seizure from the place of business of the applicants under section 13(2) of the Act of 1954. This contention of Mr. Chakraborty thus succeeds. 7.. The next contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that the retention of the papers and documents seized under section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 is illegal for contravention of rule 19 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954. This contention is also to be accepted. Under rule 19 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954, books of accounts, registers or documents seized under section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, on preparing a search-list, cannot be retained for more than one month without the sanction of the prescribed authority. By a notification dated June 1, 1987, the period of one month has been extended to a period of one year. Be that as it may, it appears that by an order passed on April 8, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal and the notices issued to Messrs. Kailash Brothers for production of books of accounts and records before the Bureau of Investigation are not in accordance with law. 9.. So far as the search and seizure under the Act of 1941 is concerned, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate for the applicants, has not seriously opposed the search and seizure under the Act of 1941. He cannot make any serious objection to such search and seizure, in view of the definition of the word "dealer" in section 2(c) of the Act of 1941, which runs as follows: "'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of selling goods in West Bengal or of purchasing goods in West Bengal in specified circumstances........." 10.. It is the case of the applicants that they purchase locally from different persons in Calcutta the articles, viz., dry fruits, kirana and groceries and sell these articles within West Bengal. Under section 14(3) of the Act of 1941, there can be seizure of accounts, registers or documents of a "dealer", if the Commissioner or any person appointed to assist him has reason to suspect that any dealer is attempting to evade payment of any tax under the Act of 1941. Before making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why the notice issued under the Act of 1941 should be quashed, the applicants have included the notice issued under the Act of 1941 in their composite prayer relating also to the notices sent under the Act of 1954. No arguments have also been advanced by Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate for the applicants, that the issue of the notice under the Act of 1941 is violative of article 265 or 286 or 301 or 302 or 303 or 304 of the Constitution, though all these articles of the Constitution are mentioned in the writ petition. Be that as it may, when the documents and papers seized under the Act of 1941 are to be returned to the applicants for reasons already stated, it will be for the concerned authorities to decide as to what further steps they should take in the matter. 12.. From what has been stated above, the application is to succeed in part. 13.. The application is, therefore, allowed in part. Let the documents seized by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, attached to the Bureau of Investigation on March 12, 1982, under the Act of 1941 as well as Act of 1954, be returned to the applicants within one month from this date. The notices issued to Messrs. Kailash Brothers, 72, Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
