Retention of seized accounts and bank attachment require lawful sanction and valid demand; otherwise both measures are invalid.

Continued retention of seized books of accounts beyond the statutory period under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is invalid unless written sanction is lawfully obtained and the recorded reasons are communicated to the dealer within time; where that communication is absent and the extended period has expired, retention becomes unlawful and release is warranted. Attachment of a dealer's bank account also requires a valid subsisting demand notice and cannot be sustained merely to secure speculative recovery; in the absence of such demand, the attachment lacks legal foundation and must be vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seized books of accounts and other documents could be retained beyond the prescribed period without a valid sanction communicated to the dealer; (ii) Whether the attachment of the dealer's bank accounts was legally sustainable in the absence of a valid demand notice.

Issue (i): Whether the seized books of accounts and other documents could be retained beyond the prescribed period without a valid sanction communicated to the dealer.

Analysis: Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 permits seizure of books of accounts where evasion is suspected, but retention beyond the prescribed period requires written sanction from the competent authority and communication of the recorded reasons to the dealer. The governing decisions applied the rule that non-communication of the sanction and reasons within time vitiates continued retention and renders any subsequent retention unlawful. On the admitted facts, the sanction order for extended retention was not effectively communicated and the extended period had already expired.

Conclusion: The continued retention of the books of accounts and documents was illegal and without authority of law, and their release was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment of the dealer's bank accounts was legally sustainable in the absence of a valid demand notice.

Analysis: Attachment of a dealer's bank account requires a valid subsisting demand and cannot be sustained merely to secure a speculative recovery. The record showed that the attachment had been withdrawn in part, but the governing principle remained that such attachment is impermissible without a valid demand notice. The attachment therefore lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: The bank account attachment was illegal and liable to be vacated.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, with directions for immediate release of the seized books of accounts and vacation of the attachment orders if still operative.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued retention of seized books of accounts beyond the statutory period is invalid unless the sanction is lawfully obtained and its recorded reasons are communicated to the dealer within time; bank account attachment cannot be sustained without a valid demand.

---