Contemporaneous reasons and valid suspicion upheld the seizure and later production notice under sales tax law.

Contemporaneous reasons recorded before seizure were sufficient to support a valid suspicion of attempted tax evasion, and the seizure was upheld despite objections about the witness particulars and the absence of a second witness, as no legal infirmity or prejudice was shown. The notice requiring production of books of account was also valid, because it was issued for examination of the seized records and the hearing date was fixed at the dealer's request. The challenge to both the seizure and the subsequent notice therefore failed, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seizure of documents on 29 February 1996 was valid in law, including whether the officer had reason to suspect attempted tax evasion and had recorded reasons before the seizure; (ii) whether the notice dated 12 March 1996 requiring production of books of account was legally valid.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of documents on 29 February 1996 was valid in law, including whether the officer had reason to suspect attempted tax evasion and had recorded reasons before the seizure.

Analysis: The contemporaneous record, read with the seizure receipt, showed that the reasons had been separately recorded before the seizure receipt was issued. On that material, the officer's conclusion that there were grounds to suspect evasion could not be said to be unsupported. The objection regarding the witness also failed, because the record did not show bias or any legal infirmity from the absence of the witness's address. The absence of more than one witness did not vitiate the seizure on the facts found.

Conclusion: The seizure of documents was valid and legal.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice dated 12 March 1996 requiring production of books of account was legally valid.

Analysis: The notice was issued for examination of the books of account along with the seized documents, and the fixing of the date on the same day was at the instance of the dealer seeking early hearing. No legal invalidity was established merely because the notice was issued on the same date or because seized documents were already in custody.

Conclusion: The notice dated 12 March 1996 was legally valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure and the subsequent notice failed, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a seizure under the relevant sales tax law, it is sufficient if the officer has recorded contemporaneous reasons showing a basis to suspect tax evasion before the seizure, and procedural objections such as the number or particulars of witnesses will not invalidate the seizure absent demonstrated prejudice or legal non-compliance.

---