9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax mentioning the old registration numbers and there was no complaint of tax evasion against him. 2.. On February 29, 1996, respondent No. 1 and his associates conducted a raid at the place of business of the applicant. He made an indiscriminate search there, forced Shri Jugal Kishore Mimani, a partner of the former company to open all desks, drawers and almirahs and ultimately seized papers, diaries, personal letters, books of accounts, etc., most of which had no nexus with the business of the applicant. The respondent No. 1 and his associates did not at all examine those papers, etc., to find out whether the applicant and his partner had been actually attempting to evade payment of taxes. 3.. According to the applicant, such search and seizure is illegal as it was done without any reasonable cause. The applicant alleges that no report was drawn up prior to the seizure of books, etc., made by the respondent No. 1 as he was required under the provisions of law to do. The respondent No. 1 was duty bound to form an opinion that the applicant had been evading or attempting to evade payment of tax and it is only after recording the same with reasons therefor, in writing, that he co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on March 12, 1996 directing the applicant to appear and produce books of accounts on the same day clearly indicates the vindictive and biased attitude of the respondent No. 2. The direction of the respondent No. 2 to the applicant to produce books of accounts was also surprising because all seized papers, documents, etc., were lying with the respondent No. 2 and as such the notice is liable to be quashed. The respondent No. 2 asked the applicant on the same day, i.e., on March 12, 1996 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 as sales tax to Government treasury and threatened that in case of non-compliance, he would cause arrest of the applicant and his partners. 6.. In his affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents, respondent No. 2 has submitted that no search was conducted at the place of the applicant before effecting the impugned seizure. All the books of accounts and documents which were seized were produced by the partner of the applicant himself. The seizure was effected in accordance with provisions of law. It is not true that the said partner was forced to open all desks, drawers and almirahs as alleged or at all. The books of accounts and documents were produced by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed on that very date because the representative of the applicant had by a letter filed on March 12, 1996 requested for an early hearing. It is denied that the applicant was required to produce such books of account and documents which had already been seized on February 29, 1996 for examination in terms of the said notice. On the contrary, in the said notice it is specified that the books of account and documents to be produced by the applicant were to be examined along with the documents seized from him on February 29, 1996. It is also denied that the applicant was ever asked by respondent No. 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 or any other amount or that he threatened the applicant or his partner in any manner. 9.. Mr. M.L. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the applicant, argued that a perusal of the report prepared by the officer who seized the documents on February 29, 1996 clearly indicates that the report was recorded after the seizure was completed and not before the seizure as is required under the statute. The last line of the report states that "a separate seizure receipt is granted to the dealer under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 ". From this it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts of a dealer, some conditions have to be fulfilled. The persons conducting the seizure should have reason to suspect that the dealer was attempting to evade payment of any tax. He must record the reasons in writing. Such recording of reasons shall be prior to the seizure of such accounts, registers and documents of the dealer, and a receipt should be granted for such documents seized by him. The officer can retain such documents only for such period as may be necessary for examination thereof or for prosecution or for any other purpose of this Act. In the present case, the reasons have been recorded in detail by the officer. The record shows that the reasons have been recorded on a piece of paper bearing the letter-head of the dealer. The officer has given the detailed reasons in this report. According to the report, the officer visited the dealer's place of business for verification of actual volume of sales and for comparing the same with the amount of tax paid. On demand the records were produced by Shri Jugal Kishore Mimani, partner of the firm and he supplied the necessary information also. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that from the record it would be clear that du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witness was obtained through Shri J.K. Mimani to whom he was known and hence the fact that his address is not recorded does not vitiate the seizure at all. The argument that the witness is not an independent one is also not correct because the witness was produced by the dealer and he was not in any way biased in favour of the respondents; if anything, he was well-known to the applicant. Under the circumstances, non-existence of two or more witnesses does not affect the validity of the seizure, as the requirement of law under the 1994 Act is different from those under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In his arguments in reply Mr. Bhattacharjee stated that the witness cannot be considered to be an independent witness if he is biased in favour of the dealer. He should not, Mr. Bhattacharjee argued, be biased in any one's favour. 14.. Regarding the allegation that there was no prior information before the officer, Mr. Chakraborty argued that as far as section 66 of the 1994 Act is concerned, it would be enough if the officer has reason to suspect that there is any attempt at evading payment of taxes. It is not necessary that he should have any prior information. In the instant cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
