Seizure of accounts upheld where tax-evasion suspicion and recorded reasons satisfied statutory requirements.

The Gauhati HC held that seizure of books of account under the Assam General Sales Tax Act was valid where the authorised officer had reason to suspect tax evasion and recorded those reasons in writing. The Court distinguished inspection, search and seizure, noting that officers could require production and inspect records under section 44(1) and 44(2), while seizure under section 44(3) depended on statutory suspicion and recorded reasons. On the facts, discrepancies found during inspection supported the officer's suspicion, the reasons were duly recorded, and the challenge to the seizure and consequential action failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the petitioner's books of account and the notice for production of records under section 44 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 were illegal for want of recorded reasons and jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between inspection, search, and seizure. Authorities appointed under section 3 could require production of accounts and inspect business records under section 44(1) and 44(2), while seizure under section 44(3) was permissible only where the officer had reason to suspect evasion of tax and recorded those reasons in writing. The Court found that the inspection at the petitioner's premises disclosed discrepancies suggesting under-charging of tax, that the officer formed the requisite suspicion, and that the reasons for seizure were recorded. The earlier decision relied upon by the petitioner was held inapplicable because, on the facts here, the statutory requirements had been complied with.

Conclusion: The seizure and consequential action were valid and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as the impugned search-related action under the sales tax law disclosed no legal infirmity warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the sales tax statute, seizure of accounts is valid only when the authorized officer has reason to suspect tax evasion and records that reason in writing, and courts will sustain the action where those statutory conditions are shown to have been satisfied.

---