9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt did not import any goods from outside the State of West Bengal for selling in or outside the State of West Bengal. Since no tanned leather is imported by the applicant since 1990 from outside the State, no permit was obtained from the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, within whose jurisdiction the applicant's place of business falls. However, declaration forms under the relevant Acts for the purpose of purchase of tanned leather from within the State of West Bengal have been obtained by the applicant from time to time. 3.. On June 25, 1996, some persons alleged to be attached to the Central Section of the Commercial Tax Directorate entered into the business place of applicant and started taking out the files, books of accounts and documents from the racks and almirahs of the applicant. After taking out the documents relating to the business of the applicant, they seized the same and issued a seizure receipt. The applicant was thereafter issued a notice under section 65 of the 1994 Act wherein he was called upon to produce various other books of accounts and documents relating to his business. The applicant duly appeared and produced the account books and offered the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at the business place of the applicant on June 25, 1996 and the question of recording of reason for such alleged search does not arise at all. There were objective reasons for formation of belief regarding evasion of tax and such reasons were duly recorded in the report drawn up by the respondent No. 1. The allegations of non-application of mind and indiscriminate seizure are denied and disputed as they are motivated and mala fide. 5.. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that in the so-called recorded reasons, some facts have been mentioned but nowhere has it categorically been stated that there was any suspected evasion of taxes. Since there was no formation of an opinion that the authority concerned had any reason to suspect evasion of taxes, there was no ground for seizure of the books of accounts. In this connection, he referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Jhunjhunwala Plastic Moulders v. I.C.T., Central Section (RN-232 of 1995 decided on 3rd May, 1996) where the applicant had submitted that the reasons recorded by the seizing official did not disclose that he had formed any opinion as to the reason to suspect that the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the goods stored in the godown or transported that day. It also appears from the report that the existence of the godown was not disclosed in the R.C. The dealer failed to produce books of accounts for the current year. There was a despatch challan issued by the dealer in favour of some purchaser in New Delhi but no sale bill in respect of the said despatch was available. The officer has recorded his belief that the goods have been transported and stored at the undisclosed godown in contravention of section 68 of the 1994 Act. On the basis of these discrepancies, there is no doubt that any normally prudent person would suspect evasion of taxes and hence although there has been no formal recording of the fact that the seizing officer suspected evasion of tax, the recording of the reasons in the present case amounts to sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 66 of the WBST Act, 1994. 8.. Regarding the seizure receipt, Mr. Mukhopadhyay submitted that there was no reason to doubt the seizure receipt because the signature of the witnesses were present on the seizure receipt. The receipt also bears the seal of the officer who seized the books of accounts. The officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test its validity; the name thus written. A signature may be written by hand, printing, stamped, typewritten, engraved, photographed, or cut from one instrument and attached to another, and a signature lithographed on an instrument by a party is sufficient for the purpose of signing it; it being immaterial with what kind of instrument a signature is made....... And whatever mark, symbol, or device one may choose to employ as representative of himself is sufficient". A seizure receipt ordinarily requires a signature for its validity because it is a statutory document under section 66 signifying completion of the act of seizure by a competent statutory authority. In India, a seizure receipt cannot be conceived of without the usual individualistic signature of the authority seizing it. But in the present case, where the act of seizure is undisputed, where witnesses to the seizure had put their signatures on the documents and where even the applicant admits in the application that the seizure receipt was issued and where, particularly, initials of the name of the officer seizing the books of account and documents were written down already in block letters, and his official stamp was pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
