Seizure under sales tax law cannot rest on alleged evasion where no assessed tax or quantified liability exists.

Section 66 seizure power under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 could not be invoked against an unregistered dealer on a bare allegation of attempted tax evasion before any assessment had quantified tax payable. The Tribunal held that tax liability arises at the charging stage, but tax becomes due only when ascertained in assessment proceedings; where the statutory return machinery under section 30(3) had not been triggered and no assessed or quantified tax existed, there was no jurisdictional basis for seizure on that ground. Compliance with seizure formalities did not cure the absence of substantive authority, so the seizure was held unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether seizure of books of account and documents under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was lawful when made against an unregistered dealer on the basis of alleged attempt to evade payment of tax before any assessment of tax payable had been made.

Analysis: The seizure power under section 66 was examined in the context of the charging and return provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Act creates liability to pay tax at the charging stage, but the amount becomes tax due only when it is ascertained in assessment proceedings. For an unregistered dealer, the statutory machinery requiring a return under section 30(3) had not been set in motion, and there was no assessed tax or quantified tax payable on the facts. In that situation, the alleged attempt to evade payment of tax could not legally sustain a seizure under section 66. The Tribunal also found that the procedural formalities of seizure were otherwise complied with, but that did not cure the absence of jurisdictional basis for invoking section 66 on the pleaded ground.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be bad in law and the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---