Seizure under sales tax law upheld where irregular receipt signature and recorded discrepancies were enough to show suspicion of tax evasion.

A seizure under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was treated as valid where the seizure receipt, though lacking the officer's usual signature, bore witness signatures, the official seal, and the officer's name and initials, and the seizure itself was otherwise admitted. The omission was held to be a technical irregularity not affecting the substance of the statutory act. The recorded reasons were also upheld because the report, read as a whole, disclosed unexplained discrepancies in books and documents, non-production of purchase records, non-disclosure of a godown in the registration certificate, absence of current books, and inconsistencies in despatch documents. These circumstances were sufficient to show reason to suspect attempted tax evasion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure receipt issued under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was invalid for want of the officer's signature. (ii) Whether the recorded reasons satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to suspect attempted evasion of tax for invoking seizure under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure receipt issued under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was invalid for want of the officer's signature.

Analysis: A seizure receipt is a statutory acknowledgement of seizure and ordinarily should bear the signature of the seizing officer. On the facts, however, the receipt contained the signatures of witnesses, the official seal, and the officer's name and initials in block letters. The seizure was otherwise admitted and the receipt had been issued to the applicant without objection. The omission of the usual signature was treated as an irregularity not affecting the substance of the statutory act.

Conclusion: The seizure receipt was held to be valid and not invalidated merely because the officer's usual signature was absent.

Issue (ii): Whether the recorded reasons satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to suspect attempted evasion of tax for invoking seizure under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The recorded report was read as a whole. It disclosed unexplained discrepancies in the books and documents, non-production of purchase documents, non-disclosure of the godown in the registration certificate, absence of current books of account, and discrepancies concerning despatch documents. These circumstances were held sufficient to show that the officer had reason to suspect that the dealer was attempting to evade tax, even though the report did not use a formal formulaic statement in those exact words.

Conclusion: The statutory requirement of recorded reasons was held to have been sufficiently complied with.

Final Conclusion: The seizure and the underlying recording of reasons were upheld, and the application challenging them was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For seizure under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, the recorded circumstances may be read as a whole to determine whether there was reason to suspect evasion of tax, and a technical defect in the form of the seizure receipt does not invalidate the seizure where the statutory act is otherwise clearly established.

---