Lawful authority for seizure action was absent, and the writ challenge was maintainable despite the Taxation Tribunal framework.

Seizure action based on the impugned notification was held to lack lawful authority because the authority invoked did not correspond with the statutory source relied upon, and the notification had ceased to operate after repeal of the earlier Sales Tax Act without being saved or revived for this purpose. The challenge was also held outside the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal framework under Article 323B, because that regime covered disputes on levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of tax under specified State Acts, not the legality of seizure action itself. The writ petition was therefore maintainable, and the impugned notification and proceedings were declared illegal and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure and proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned notification and consequential action were without authority of law, and whether the writ petition was barred by the constitution and operation of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal framework under Article 323B of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The notice and seizure were traced to a notification issued under section 11 of the Bengal Amusements Tax Act, 1922, but the authority sought to be exercised was held not to match the statutory source relied upon. The notification was also found to have become ineffective after the repeal of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the later Act did not save or revive the earlier notification for the present purpose. The Court further held that the Taxation Tribunal regime under Article 323B and the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 was confined to disputes concerning levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of tax under the specified State Acts, whereas the present challenge was to the legality of the seizure action itself and the absence of lawful authority for such action under the relevant statute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the impugned notification and proceedings pursuant to it were illegal and unsustainable.

---