Search and seizure under sales tax law: witness absence is not fatal absent prejudice, and contemporaneous suspicion can sustain action.

In sales tax search and seizure proceedings, absence of independent witnesses was treated as a curable irregularity, not a fatal defect, unless the dealer showed prejudice or a real risk of evidence manipulation. The tribunal also stated that recorded reasons were sufficient where contemporaneous materials showed transactions capable of giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of tax evasion; it did not require proof of evasion at the seizure stage. A report prepared after seizure was not established merely because it appeared on the dealer's stationery or lacked witness signatures. On that basis, the seizure and resulting notice were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether absence of independent witnesses at the time of seizure under the sales tax law invalidated the seizure. (ii) Whether the recorded reasons for seizure were shown to be non-existent, post-seizure, or insufficient to found a reasonable suspicion of evasion.

Issue (i): Whether absence of independent witnesses at the time of seizure under the sales tax law invalidated the seizure.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the procedure under the criminal procedure law to be followed in search and seizure matters only as far as possible. The absence of witnesses was not treated as a mandatory fatal defect in every case. The decisive question was whether that omission caused prejudice or created a real risk of planting or manipulation of evidence. Where the identity of the seized books was not disputed and no prejudice was shown, the omission was treated as a curable irregularity rather than a nullity.

Conclusion: The absence of witnesses did not invalidate the seizure.

Issue (ii): Whether the recorded reasons for seizure were shown to be non-existent, post-seizure, or insufficient to found a reasonable suspicion of evasion.

Analysis: The provision requiring reasons in writing was satisfied where the contemporaneous record showed discrepancies such as unreported lease-based sales and unexplained receipts not reflected in the books. The tribunal declined to test the sufficiency of the material as if on merits and instead asked only whether the circumstances could reasonably support suspicion of tax evasion. The writing on the dealer's stationery and the absence of witness signatures did not rebut the presumption that official acts were regularly performed or show that the report was prepared after the seizure.

Conclusion: The recorded reasons were held to be contemporaneous and adequate to support the seizure.

Final Conclusion: The seizure and consequential notice were upheld, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In search and seizure proceedings under the sales tax law, non-compliance with witness formalities is not fatal unless prejudice is shown, and a contemporaneous record disclosing circumstances capable of generating reasonable suspicion of evasion is sufficient to sustain the seizure.

---