https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157483 Inspection, search and seizure under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act operate as distinct powers, each dependent on its own statutory precondition; action taken without the specific condition precedent is invalid even if related powers are otherwise available. A notice under section 10(5) was held invalid because it did not disclose the required basis of error, omission, or reason to believe, though a fresh notice could be issued lawfully. Searches and seizures at the factory and city office were upheld on the recorded facts, but the residence search was unauthorised for want of statutory information and reason to believe. Section 14(1) notices were valid; the self-assessment demand was not. en-us Thu, 24 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:37:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157483 Inspection, search and seizure under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act operate as distinct powers, each dependent on its own statutory precondition; action taken without the specific condition precedent is invalid even if related powers are otherwise available. A notice under section 10(5) was held invalid because it did not disclose the required basis of error, omission, or reason to believe, though a fresh notice could be issued lawfully. Searches and seizures at the factory and city office were upheld on the recorded facts, but the residence search was unauthorised for want of statutory information and reason to believe. Section 14(1) notices were valid; the self-assessment demand was not. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 24 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157483