Concurrent jurisdiction in tax seizure proceedings requires formal transfer and a fair hearing on supporting documents.

Under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, a seizure and penalty proceeding initiated by one competent officer could not be continued by another officer without a formal transfer order from the Commissioner. Once the initiating officer issued the notice, he retained control of the matter, despite concurrent jurisdiction, and the later penalty order was unsustainable for want of authority. The dealer was also entitled to produce relevant supporting documents at the hearing, and the deciding authority had to consider them before imposing seizure and penalty consequences. The impugned penalty order and consequential demand were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether respondent No. 2 could assume and continue the seizure and penalty proceeding initiated by respondent No. 1 without a formal order of transfer by the Commissioner; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to produce supporting documents at the stage of hearing of the seizure and penalty proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether respondent No. 2 could assume and continue the seizure and penalty proceeding initiated by respondent No. 1 without a formal order of transfer by the Commissioner.

Analysis: Under section 3(3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, the Commissioner alone could transfer a case from one competent officer to another. The record disclosed no formal transfer of the proceeding from respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. Although both officers had concurrent statutory competence to deal with the matter, once respondent No. 1 had initiated the proceeding by issuing the notice in Form No. 44, he became seized of it. Another officer could not intervene and proceed with the same matter in the absence of a formal transfer order.

Conclusion: Respondent No. 2 had no authority to continue the proceeding, and the penalty order passed by him was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to produce supporting documents at the stage of hearing of the seizure and penalty proceeding.

Analysis: The proceeding remained pending before the officer who had initiated it, and fairness required that the dealer be given an opportunity to place relevant documents during the hearing. The authority hearing the matter had to consider such documents in accordance with law before determining the consequences of seizure and penalty.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to produce the relevant documents during the hearing, and they were required to be considered.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding could continue only before the officer who had originally initiated it, after giving the petitioner a proper hearing. The impugned penalty order and the consequential demand were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two officers have concurrent jurisdiction, the officer who first validly seizes the proceeding retains control of it unless the Commissioner makes a formal transfer, and the affected party must be given an opportunity to object and to place relevant material before the deciding authority.

---