Search and seizure powers under sales tax law may include necessary inspection searches; writ relief is limited against security demands.

Section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was read to permit inspection, entry, search and seizure where the dealer failed to produce current books and there was material suggesting tax evasion; the search and seizure were therefore treated as lawful. A demand for security under section 7(4a)(i) was also upheld because it followed notice and hearing, involved factual matters rather than a jurisdictional defect, and the dealer had an available statutory revision remedy that was not shown to have been pursued. The writ petition was dismissed after both actions were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and seizure of the dealer's business premises and books were unlawful under section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941; (ii) Whether the demand for security under section 7(4a)(i) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure of the dealer's business premises and books were unlawful under section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: Section 14(1) empowers the Commissioner to require production of accounts and information, section 14(2) makes all relevant accounts, registers, documents and goods open to inspection, section 14(3) authorises seizure where there is reason to suspect evasion, and section 14(4) permits entry and search for the purposes of inspection and seizure. The power to inspect was held to include the practical ability to search for accounts and goods not produced by the dealer, otherwise the statutory power would be rendered ineffective. On the facts, the dealer failed to produce current books or explain their absence, and there was material for the officials' belief that tax was being evaded.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were held to be lawful and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for security under section 7(4a)(i) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The demand for security was made after notice, hearing and consideration of the dealer's reply. The dispute was treated as largely factual and not one involving inherent lack of jurisdiction. The dealer had a statutory remedy by way of revision, which was not shown to have been pursued. In these circumstances, writ interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The demand for security was upheld and no writ relief was granted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts presented and was dismissed after upholding both the search and seizure action and the security demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes accounts and goods open to inspection and authorises entry, search and seizure in aid of that inspection, the power of search may be implied as necessary to make the inspection power effective; writ relief will ordinarily not be granted against a factual security demand made after hearing where an adequate statutory remedy exists.

---