TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f plastic goods at its factory at 26-B, Creek Row, Calcutta14. But, for the last few years the business of manufacture of plastic goods for sale was stopped and only job-work was continued with the raw materials supplied by customers. It claims that it is not liable to pay tax under Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also the new Act, namely, the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. On November 2, 1995 respondent No. 1, alongwith others allegedly illegally seized books of accounts and documents kept at the said place of business. Various grounds have been taken to challenge the seizure but at the time of hearing only two grounds were pressed by the learned advocate for the applicant. Those grounds are that there was no formation of opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The application has been resisted by the respondent who filed affidavits-in-opposition. As already said, applicants have also filed affidavits-in-reply. 6.. The common ground in both the cases is that the seizures are bad in the absence of any witness as required in rule 207(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 which provide that all seizures under section 66 and several other sections shall be made as far as possible in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure is section 100(4). In several cases of seizure of documents and books of accounts from places of business and residences, this Tribunal has pointed out that rule 207(1) of 1995 Rules whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement to the effect that despite effort, witnesses could not be found, there is no other fact or circumstance from which it is possible for this Tribunal to be satisfied that actually efforts to find witnesses were in vain. Moreover, in the present cases, the necessity of seizure witnesses was greater because of the fact that the seizing officials relied on purported confessions of the persons representing the applicant-firms. Allegedly, the confessions were to the effect that the firms were, in fact, carrying on business of manufacture of goods for sale, but they were not reflecting the same in the returns and thereby evading payment of tax. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the cases, rule 207(1) was contrav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm to the effect that the firm was actually making sales but was not showing them in the returns thus evading tax. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that even if there was any such confession, it was for the officer making the seizure either to be satisfied or not to be satisfied about reasons to suspect that the applicant was evading tax. The recorded reasons do not disclose that the seizing official had arrived at any such opinion that there were reasons to suspect that applicant was evading tax. It may be pointed out in this connection that mere confession does not amount to a proof of a sale. The question of reasons to suspect regarding evasion of tax can arise if there is some material or information to the effect that sales were actually bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
