Communication of reasons for retention of seized records is mandatory; non-disclosure makes continued detention unlawful and writ relief maintainable.

Communication of recorded reasons and sanction was mandatory before seized books and documents could be retained beyond the statutory period under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The court treated the retention requirements as mandatory because the action directly affected the assessee's rights; reasons kept only on the file were insufficient if not disclosed to the affected party. Non-communication rendered the continued retention illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction. The writ petition was maintainable despite objections based on alternative remedy, delay and laches, because the impugned action breached mandatory statutory requirements and the challenge was frustrated by the absence of communication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reasons and sanction for retention of the seized books and documents beyond the prescribed period under section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 had to be communicated to the assessee, and whether non-communication vitiated the continued retention; (ii) Whether the existence of statutory remedies and alleged delay or laches barred the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the reasons and sanction for retention of the seized books and documents beyond the prescribed period under section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 had to be communicated to the assessee, and whether non-communication vitiated the continued retention.

Analysis: The power to seize and retain records under section 14 directly affected the assessee's rights and could not be treated as a mere internal administrative step. The statutory scheme required reasons to be recorded for retention beyond the initial period, and the court treated those requirements as mandatory. Reliance on the principle that reasons recorded in the file are insufficient unless disclosed to the affected person was accepted, since the assessee must be able to challenge an adverse order that prejudicially affects its business records and statutory rights.

Conclusion: Non-communication of the reasons and sanction was fatal, and the retention of the seized documents beyond the permissible period was illegal, unauthorised, and without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of statutory remedies and alleged delay or laches barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The availability of appeal or other remedies did not defeat writ relief where the impugned action itself was found to be without jurisdiction and in breach of mandatory statutory requirements. Since the statutory right to challenge the retention was effectively frustrated by non-communication of the sanction, the court treated the writ petition as maintainable notwithstanding the objection based on alternative remedy or delay.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objections based on alternative remedy and laches failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the continued detention of the seized records was held to be contrary to the mandatory requirements of the statute, and the assessee was entitled to relief against the unlawful retention.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires recording of reasons and sanction for an order that prejudicially affects an assessee, communication of that order is mandatory and non-communication renders the action invalid.

---