Valid seizure after inspection depends on recorded reasons and bona fide suspicion of tax evasion based on relevant material.

A seizure of books of account and documents under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is valid where the authorised officer first conducts an inspection, records reasons before seizure, and relies on material giving rise to a bona fide suspicion of tax evasion. The Tribunal held that discrepancies in declaration forms, returns, purchase and sales records, and eligibility certificate materials provided a sufficient basis for suspicion. It further held that the adequacy of that material need not be reassessed once some relevant basis for suspicion exists. The seizure was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the dealer's books of account and documents under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was valid, particularly where the inspecting officer had first conducted an inspection under section 65, recorded reasons before seizure, and formed suspicion of evasion of tax on the basis of discrepancies in the records and the eligibility certificate process.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted an authorised officer to enter the business premises and inspect books and documents under section 65. The seizure power under section 66 could be exercised only when, before seizure, the officer recorded reasons for suspecting that tax had been or was being evaded. The record showed a pre-seizure report prepared on the date of action, setting out the information received, the inspection made at the business premises, the documents produced by the petitioner's representative, and the discrepancies noticed in the declaration forms, returns, purchase and sales records, and eligibility certificate materials. The Tribunal held that the matter was not one of search but of inspection followed by seizure, and that the existence of recorded reasons and supporting materials was sufficient to show a bona fide basis for suspicion. The Tribunal further held that it was not required to determine the sufficiency of the material, only whether some material existed to justify the officer's suspicion.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be valid and sustainable; the challenge to the action under section 66 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is valid if, before seizure, the authorised officer records reasons based on material sufficient to form a bona fide suspicion of tax evasion; the court will not reassess the sufficiency of that material once some relevant basis for suspicion exists.

---