1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal upholds sanction order for seized books, directs investigation completion within 3 months</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, upholding the validity of the sanction order for the retention of seized books of account beyond the ... - Issues:1. Seizure of books of account under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. Validity of the order for retention of seized books beyond the specified period.3. Communication of sanction order to the partnership firm.4. Timeliness of the communication of the sanction order.5. Completion of investigation and cooperation by the applicant-firm.Analysis:1. The case involved the seizure of books of account and papers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, from the business premises of the applicant. The main contention was the validity of retaining the seized books beyond the specified period without proper sanction.2. The applicant argued that no valid sanction for retention was obtained beyond the specified period. The respondent claimed that a sanction was obtained and communicated to the applicant. The Tribunal found that the communication of the sanction order to the partnership firm was valid, considering the registration under the Partnership Act and the nature of the application filed.3. The timeliness of the communication of the sanction order was also contested. The applicant argued that the communication was not expeditious and was made after the application was filed. However, the Tribunal found that the communication was made promptly after the order was obtained, and thus, the delay was not unreasonable.4. The Tribunal rejected the argument that non-receipt of the communication before filing the application should disregard the sanction order. It held that the order was obtained before the application was served on the respondent, making it a relevant factor in the case.5. The completion of the investigation and cooperation by the applicant-firm were crucial. The Tribunal directed the respondents to complete the investigation within three months and return the seized books of account and papers. The applicant was instructed to cooperate, and the respondents were allowed to retain xerox copies at their cost.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the main application, directing the completion of the investigation, cooperation by the applicant, and the return of seized documents within specified timelines.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
