9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 1993-94 from the inception of the business of the applicant purportedly under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The subject-matter is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court has been barred in respect thereof. The case of the applicant is that he runs a business under the trade name M/s. Madan Kr. Gupta at Ranigunj and was registered as a dealer under the 1941 Act on September 16, 1993 with validity of the registration certificate from September 15, 1993. On March 7, 1994, two Inspectors of Commercial Tax visited the business place of the applicant and allegedly demanded an undertaking to pay Rs. 4 lakhs within a period of two weeks, so that the office of Asans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... custody with consent of the applicant. No seizure was made on March 7, 1994, on the request of the applicant. Applicant was directed by the inspectors to produce the connected records within a day or two and to explain the entries for the purpose of verification, but no such thing was done. It is denied that anyone appeared before respondent No. 2 on March 10, 1994 or that advance tax was also demanded on that date. Since no one appeared up to March 15, 1994, the books of account were seized and the seizure receipt was issued by post. Regarding the notice dated June 9, 1994, the case of respondent is that they have the power to issue such a notice for causing production of books of account and records. It is denied that the seized books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994, which ends with the statement that the two books of account were taken away with the consent of the applicant. That report was countersigned by the applicant. But since it was a continuous report ending with taking away of the books of account, it is clear that there was no recorded reasons, prepared before the seizure had taken place or before the books had been taken away. Moreover, on a reading of the enquiry report, it appears that there was no suspicion till then about any attempt to evade tax, although it was recorded that some documents could not be produced in support of the two books taken by the inspectors. The seizure receipt dated March 15, 1994 simply says that the inspectors had reasons to believe that applicant was tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any business covered by section 6D regarding works contract. Moreover, having already been registered as a dealer with effect from September 15, 1993, there was no question of violation of section 7(1). According to Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned State Representative, the Commercial Tax Officer might issue a notice under section 14(1) like this for investigation on the basis of the seized books of account. But the notice does not speak of such an investigation. As the notice stands, it could not have been issued to the applicant on the basis that he was violating sections 7(1) and 6D. Accordingly, this notice is also invalid. In the result, the application is allowed; the seizure of two books of account on March 7, 1994/March 15, 1994 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
