9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the applicants is that applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the company") runs a jute mill, namely, Hanuman Jute Mill and carries on the business of manufacturing hessian cloth, B. twill bags, D.W. tarpaulin cloth, etc., and for that purpose purchases raw materials within the State of West Bengal and from outside and also sells the finished products in and outside the State. It is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Its place of business is at 70, Nalini Sett Road, Calcutta-7 and it has also commenced business from Stephen House at 29/1, 4E B.B.D. Bag, Calcutta-1. The intimation of the second place of business at B.B.D. Bag was given to the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allegedly indicative that they did not apply their mind independently. Section 66 of 1994 Act has been contravened, because the seizure list did not say that the company was attempting to evade tax. It was, instead, said that tax was evaded. There was no witness to the searches and seizures, and hence the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were violated. 3.. Respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Their case is that intimation about keeping a second place of business at B.B.D. Bag, Calcutta, was not received by the respondents. Sending the intimation under certificate of posting is not an authorised mode of giving the intimation or of applying for inclusion of an additional place of business in the registration certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicants to have xerox copies of books of account and documents seized at both the places at their own cost. 6.. Mrs. Rita Mukerjee, learned advocate for the applicant, challenged the seizure at Nalini Sett Road on four grounds. She submitted that from a reading of the recorded reasons filed as annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition (pages 10 and 11) it was clear that it was written after the seizure had been made, and not prior to the making of the seizure. Secondly, she said that the law requires that a seizure receipt should be granted, while in this case, only a "seizure list" was given. Thirdly, she complained that there was no seizure witness in terms of section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence there was viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt was made to evade payment of tax. The recorded reasons are expected to throw light on the mental condition of the officer making the seizure at the point of time before actually the seizure was made. Any seizure is in a way violation of a person's right. The requirement of recording reasons is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of the power of seizure and against a roving enquiry without any reason to suspect. If the reason is recorded after the making of a seizure, it loses its efficacy. Since this important requirement of section 66 has not been complied with in the case of seizure at Nalini Sett Road, we must hold that the seizure is invalid. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to enter into the other two points ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition, that there was one seizure witness, Bhag Chand Jain. It has been explained by the learned State Representative, appearing for the respondents, at the time of hearing that the copy of the seizure receipt delivered to the applicants did not contain the signature of witness as also signature of the recipient of the seizure receipt, while both the signatures appear in the document, copy of which has been furnished at pages 17 and 18 of the affidavitin-opposition. After hearing both sides, we are convinced that there was a seizure witness, whose signature was taken on the copy of seizure receipt retained by the tax officials but not on the seizure receipt granted to the applicants. It has been admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee submitted that "reason to believe" as written in the seizure receipt is different from reason to suspect" as required by section 66. While agreeing that reason to believe" is a stronger stage of opinion than "reason to suspect", she submitted that if there was already reason to believe, the officers were already convinced and had materials about evasion of tax, thereby making the seizure unnecessary and harassing. Mr. D. K. Chakraborty, learned State Representative, appearing for the respondents, submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the Inspector, who wrote the seizure receipt, to state that he had reason to believe. He wanted to say that he had reason to suspect. Without going into the controversy as to whether the officer mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
