Tax seizure and writ jurisdiction principles upheld where evasion indicators and non-accounted stock satisfied statutory conditions.

The notice requiring production of books and documents under the taxing statute was upheld because the authority had power to call for records and no specific jurisdictional defect was shown. Seizure of books of account and other documents was also upheld, as the recorded allegations of misclassification and accounting higher-rate goods at a lower rate satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to believe that tax was being evaded. Seizure of goods found in the godown was valid because the stock did not tally with the invoices and was not duly accounted for in the ordinary course of business. The availability of a statutory revision remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the action was alleged to be without authority or without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice calling for production of books and documents under the taxing statute was without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether seizure of books of account and other documents was justified under the statutory condition of reason to believe that tax was being evaded. (iii) Whether seizure of goods was justified on the ground that the goods found in the godown were not accounted for in the ordinary course of business. (iv) Whether availability of a statutory revision remedy barred the writ petition under article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the notice calling for production of books and documents under the taxing statute was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The authority was empowered to require production of accounts, registers, documents and related information. No specific challenge was advanced to the notice itself, and the power to demand production existed independently of the later dispute regarding seizure.

Conclusion: The notice was not without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether seizure of books of account and other documents was justified under the statutory condition of reason to believe that tax was being evaded.

Analysis: The seizure list alleged misclassification of goods and accounting of goods taxable at a higher rate as goods taxable at a lower rate. On those allegations, the statutory condition that the dealer had evaded or was attempting to evade tax and was maintaining accounts in a manner likely to cause evasion was satisfied, making seizure of books and documents permissible.

Conclusion: The seizure of books of account and other documents was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether seizure of goods was justified on the ground that the goods found in the godown were not accounted for in the ordinary course of business.

Analysis: The seizure grounds stated that the stock did not tally with the invoices produced and that higher-rate goods had been shown at a lower rate. On that basis, the goods could not be treated as duly accounted for, so the statutory condition for seizure of goods was met.

Conclusion: The seizure of goods was valid.

Issue (iv): Whether availability of a statutory revision remedy barred the writ petition under article 226.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of self-restraint and not an absolute bar. Where the impugned action is alleged to be without authority of law or without jurisdiction, the writ court can intervene notwithstanding a revision remedy.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy did not bar the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the seizures was not accepted, but the respondents were directed to complete verification or enquiry expeditiously and thereafter deal with release of the seized goods in accordance with the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure made on statutory conditions precedent can be upheld where the recorded grounds disclose tax evasion or non-accounting of goods, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the action is alleged to be without jurisdiction.

---