Search and seizure for suspected tax evasion upheld where objective circumstances supported suspicion and statutory safeguards were followed.

Search and seizure under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 is valid where the authority has an objectively supportable reason to suspect tax evasion and follows the prescribed safeguards. On the facts, circumstances indicated possible suppression of sales, so the seizure of books and documents and the notice for production of records were within jurisdiction. A related examination of records at the factory, head office and city office was treated as part of the same authorised search operation, and the allegations of mala fides and coercion were rejected. The challenge failed and the authorities' action was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of books and documents and the consequent notice for production of records under section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were without jurisdiction for want of a reason to suspect evasion of tax; whether the surprise visit and search at the factory, head office and city office were authorised and in accordance with the Act and Rules; and whether the action was vitiated by mala fides or coercion.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 14(3) is attracted when the competent authority has reason to suspect that a dealer is attempting to evade tax, and the search and seizure procedure is controlled by the prescribed rules and the safeguards analogous to section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. On the materials before the authority, there were objective circumstances supporting suspicion of suppression of sales and evasion, and the subsequent examination of connected records at other premises was treated as part of the same search operation rather than an independent unauthorised search. The plea that the signatures were obtained under threat and coercion was not accepted, and the court also held that the petitioners' conduct in seeking repeated adjournments showed lack of bona fides. The cited authorities did not assist the petitioners on the facts found.

Conclusion: The seizure, search and notice were held valid and within jurisdiction, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge was rejected, and the authorities' action under the sales tax law was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A search and seizure under the sales tax law is lawful where the authority has an objectively supportable reason to suspect tax evasion and acts in accordance with the prescribed safeguards; connected searches flowing from the same operation are not invalid merely because they extend to other premises.

---