Special search power overrides territorial limits, validating cross-Charge seizure where records are suspected to be concealed.

A specific search-and-seizure power under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was treated as overriding the general territorial limit on an officer's jurisdiction, so an Inspector could search premises in another Charge where information created reason to believe that business records were kept there. The majority read sections 62, 65, 66 and 67 harmoniously and accepted the cross-Charge seizure as authorised. It also found that reasons had been recorded and that the absence of an independent witness did not, on the facts, invalidate the seizure under the Rules. The dissent took the contrary view on territorial jurisdiction. The majority directed release of the seized materials.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an Inspector of Commercial Taxes attached to one Charge could validly exercise the power of search and seizure at a dealer's place of business situated within another Charge under section 67(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. (ii) Whether the seizure was invalid for want of recorded reasons and for absence of witnesses under the statutory requirements and the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether an Inspector of Commercial Taxes attached to one Charge could validly exercise the power of search and seizure at a dealer's place of business situated within another Charge under section 67(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The majority held that section 3(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 generally confines an officer's jurisdiction to the area of the Charge to which he is attached, but section 67(1)(b) is a special provision enabling entry and search at "any other place" where, on information received, the officer has reason to believe that the dealer keeps business records. Applying the rule that a special provision overrides a general provision, and reading sections 62(2), 65, 66 and 67 harmoniously, the majority concluded that the power to pursue removed or concealed records would be defeated if clause (b) were confined to the officer's own Charge. The majority therefore treated the cross-Charge search and seizure as authorised.

Conclusion: The seizure was held valid on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure was invalid for want of recorded reasons and for absence of witnesses under the statutory requirements and the Rules.

Analysis: The majority found that reasons were recorded before the seizure and that the official record showed a reasonable basis for suspecting tax evasion. It further held that Rule 207 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 did not lay down an inflexible requirement of witnesses in every case, and that absence of an independent witness did not by itself vitiate the seizure on the facts presented. The challenge based on alleged non-seizure of unrelated papers was also not accepted for want of particulars and supporting material.

Conclusion: The procedural challenge to the seizure failed.

Concurring Opinion: The Technical Member agreed with the majority.

Dissenting Opinion: The Judicial Member held that the Inspector attached to Alipore Charge lacked territorial jurisdiction to seize documents at the Diamond Harbour Road premises situated in Budge Budge Charge, and on that view the seizure was validly challenged by the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The majority view sustained the assessee's challenge and directed release of the seized materials, while the dissent would have upheld the seizure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a general territorial jurisdiction on an officer but also contains a specific power to search "any other place" on information and reason to believe, the special provision governs and may authorise search and seizure beyond the officer's ordinary charge area when exercised to prevent tax evasion.

---