Statutory search and seizure powers remain valid where the officer is competent under the tax law, and recovered material may still support assessment.

The Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 empowers authorities appointed under section 3(1) to conduct search and seizure under section 44(3) where tax evasion is suspected. A Superintendent of Taxes was treated as a competent statutory authority, and the fact that he was allegedly not part of a vigilance group did not negate that competence. The challenge did not directly attack his statutory authority under section 3. The text also states that materials recovered in a search may still be used for assessment and consequential recovery if otherwise admissible in law, even where the search is alleged to be irregular.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search, seizure, assessment and recovery proceedings under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 were without jurisdiction because the officer was allegedly not a member of the vigilance group or wing, and whether materials recovered in the search could still be used for assessment and consequential recovery.

Analysis: Section 3(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 empowers the State Government to appoint taxing authorities and officers to assist the Commissioner of Taxes. Section 44(3) authorises an authority appointed under section 3(1) to search and seize books, accounts, registers and documents where tax evasion is suspected. The officer in question was admittedly a Superintendent of Taxes and thus an authority competent under the Act. The alleged absence of membership in the vigilance group did not, by itself, negate the statutory powers conferred by sections 3(1) and 44(3). The challenge did not specifically assail the statutory competence of the officer under section 3. Even assuming the search to be irregular, the materials recovered could still be relied upon for assessment and consequential action if otherwise admissible in law.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the search, assessment and recovery proceedings were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that the impugned proceedings were not liable to be quashed on the ground urged by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: An officer empowered under the taxing statute may conduct search and seizure even if his alleged association with a vigilance wing is disputed, and materials recovered in an irregular or unlawful search are not automatically excluded from use in statutory assessment proceedings.

---