Pre-seizure recording and witness compliance are essential for a valid tax seizure; absent a genuine suspicion of evasion, seizure fails.

A seizure under sales tax law is valid only where reasons are recorded before the seizure and the contemporaneous record shows compliance with the prescribed search and seizure procedure. The Tribunal noted that the pre-seizure note did not clearly precede the seizure, the seizure record did not contain the required explanation for the absence of a witness, and a later affidavit could not cure that defect. It also found no genuine material showing a prior reason to suspect tax evasion. The seizure was therefore invalid and the seized books and records had to be returned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure was invalid because the reasons for seizure were not recorded before the seizure; (ii) whether the seizure was invalid for non-compliance with the requirement of securing a witness and recording the explanation for its absence under the applicable search and seizure procedure; (iii) whether there was material to justify a pre-seizure reason to suspect that the dealer was attempting to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure was invalid because the reasons for seizure were not recorded before the seizure.

Analysis: The recording of reasons had to precede the seizure, since the statutory power could be exercised only on prior recorded reasons. The contemporaneous note relied upon did not clearly show that it was made before the seizure list was prepared, and the wording indicated that the seizure process had already been set in motion when the note was made.

Conclusion: The seizure was invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure was invalid for non-compliance with the requirement of securing a witness and recording the explanation for its absence under the applicable search and seizure procedure.

Analysis: The procedure under the rule corresponding to section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not absolutely mandatory in every case, but it required an attempt to secure a witness and, where none was available, the explanation had to appear in the contemporaneous seizure record. No such explanation appeared in the seizure receipt, and a later explanation in the affidavit could not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The seizure was invalid for non-compliance with the procedural requirement.

Issue (iii): Whether there was material to justify a pre-seizure reason to suspect that the dealer was attempting to evade tax.

Analysis: The recorded reasons and the affidavit were inconsistent as to the basis of the visit, and the material did not show that, before the seizure, there existed a genuine reason to suspect tax evasion. The authority acted perfunctorily and not in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The statutory precondition for seizure was not satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seizure could not stand and the seized books and records had to be returned to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure under the sales tax law is valid only if the reasons are recorded before the seizure and the contemporaneous record discloses compliance with the prescribed seizure procedure, including a genuine basis for suspecting tax evasion.

---