Tax search and seizure powers require recorded reasons and factual basis; blanket requisitions and indiscriminate seizure are invalid.

An omnibus notice calling for all books of account from the inception of business was held outside the limited power under section 14(1), which permits requisition only of documents deemed necessary for the statutory purpose. Search and seizure under section 14(3) read with section 14(4) were held unlawful because the recorded material did not show bona fide suspicion of tax evasion, a need for seizure, or written reasons, and the seizure list merely repeated the statutory formula. Once the seizure failed, the documents were required to be returned to the dealer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an omnibus notice requiring production of all books of account since the inception of business was valid under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. (ii) Whether the search and seizure made under section 14(3) read with section 14(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were lawful. (iii) Whether the seized documents were liable to be returned to the dealer where the search and seizure were not in accordance with law.

Issue (i): Whether an omnibus notice requiring production of all books of account since the inception of business was valid under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: Section 14(1) authorises requisition only of such accounts, registers or documents as are deemed necessary for the statutory purpose. A blanket direction calling for all books from the inception of business is outside that limited power and is not a valid exercise of authority.

Conclusion: The notice under section 14(1) was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the search and seizure made under section 14(3) read with section 14(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were lawful.

Analysis: The power of search under section 14(4) operates only for the purposes contemplated by section 14(2) or section 14(3). For a valid search and seizure under section 14(3), there must be a bona fide suspicion that the dealer is attempting to evade tax, a belief that seizure is necessary for detection of such evasion, and recording of reasons in writing. The recorded minutes and contemporaneous material did not disclose such reasons or objective foundation, and the seizure list merely reproduced the statutory language without showing the factual basis for seizure. The provision does not permit roving or fishing inquiries or indiscriminate seizure of all documents.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were not in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): Whether the seized documents were liable to be returned to the dealer where the search and seizure were not in accordance with law.

Analysis: Once the search and seizure failed to satisfy the statutory requirements, the State could not justify retention of the documents on the broad ground that they might be relevant to some enquiry. The statutory obligation to return documents applied, and the contrary contention had already been rejected in earlier decisions of the court.

Conclusion: The seized documents were liable to be returned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety and the writ relief granted to the dealer was sustained, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A search and seizure under a taxing statute that permits such action only on recorded reasons founded on bona fide suspicion of tax evasion is valid only if the statutory preconditions are objectively satisfied before the search begins, and a mere repetition of the statutory language without factual basis does not constitute compliance.

---