Seizure of business records is invalid without witness-collection efforts and recorded reasons to suspect tax evasion.

Seizure of business records under the West Bengal sales tax law requires compliance with procedural safeguards and a material basis for suspicion of tax evasion. Rule 207(1), read with Section 100(4) CrPC principles, requires genuine efforts to secure witnesses; a bare assertion that witnesses were unavailable is insufficient. The seizing officer must also record reasons showing a formed suspicion of evasion under Section 66, and an uncorroborated confession alone does not establish the jurisdictional basis. Where these statutory preconditions are not met, the seizure cannot be sustained and the seized documents must be returned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of books of account and documents was invalid for non-compliance with Rule 207(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and the corresponding procedural requirement of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the seizure in one of the matters was invalid for absence of recorded reasons showing reasons to suspect evasion of tax as required by Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of books of account and documents was invalid for non-compliance with Rule 207(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and the corresponding procedural requirement of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the rule requiring seizure to be made, as far as possible, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code demanded real efforts to secure witnesses. A mere note that witnesses could not be found, without supporting facts showing such efforts, was insufficient. The need for witnesses was greater because the seizure was said to rest on alleged confessions of the representatives of the firms.

Conclusion: The seizure was invalid for contravention of Rule 207(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure in one of the matters was invalid for absence of recorded reasons showing reasons to suspect evasion of tax as required by Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The recorded reasons did not disclose that the seizing officer had formed the requisite opinion that there were reasons to suspect tax evasion. The Tribunal found that an alleged confession, without supporting material, did not by itself amount to proof of sales or suppression of sales, and therefore could not sustain the jurisdictional basis for seizure.

Conclusion: The seizure was invalid for want of the requisite reasons to suspect under Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seizures could not be sustained in law, the seized books and documents were required to be returned, and the applications succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure of business records under the sales tax law is invalid unless the statutory preconditions are satisfied, including genuine efforts to secure witnesses where procedure so requires and a duly recorded, material-based formation of reasons to suspect tax evasion.

---