Statutory retention of seized records must be supported by clear reasons and specific notice, or the extension fails.

Retention of seized records beyond the one-year statutory period under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 required recorded reasons, written sanction and timely communication of the basis for extension. Because the extension orders were passed or communicated after expiry of the permissible period, and the reasons for sanction were not communicated, the continued retention was invalid. The show-cause notice was also vague, referring generally to investigation, assessment, appeal, revision and review without stating a precise purpose, and the grounds in the final order differed from those in the notice. The notice and retention orders were therefore set aside and the documents had to be returned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order extending retention of the seized records beyond one year under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was valid; (ii) Whether the show-cause notice and the stated grounds for further retention were legal and sufficient.

Issue (i): Whether the order extending retention of the seized records beyond one year under section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was valid.

Analysis: Section 66 permits retention of seized accounts and documents beyond one year only if reasons are recorded in writing and sanction is obtained in writing. The record showed that the extension orders were passed and communicated after the relevant period had expired, and there was a further gap before the later retention order. The reasons recorded for seeking sanction were also not communicated to the petitioner. Retention orders passed or communicated after expiry of the permissible period, and unsupported by communicated reasons, offend the statutory requirement and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The retention order was invalid and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the show-cause notice and the stated grounds for further retention were legal and sufficient.

Analysis: The notice did not specify with clarity the precise purpose for which the records were to be retained, referring generally to investigation, assessment, appeal, revision and review. The reason ultimately reflected in the impugned order was different from the stated grounds in the notice. This lack of specificity deprived the petitioner of a proper opportunity to meet the case for further retention and rendered the notice vague and ineffective.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and the grounds for retention were insufficient and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders authorising continued retention of the seized records could not stand and the respondents were directed to return the seized documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized records are sought to be retained beyond the statutory period, the sanctioning reasons must be recorded, communicated, and supported by a clear and specific notice; failure to do so vitiates the retention order.

---