https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158010 The power to seal a godown under section 14(5) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as available not only to the Commissioner but also to officers appointed under section 3(1) to assist him. On that basis, the Commercial Tax Officer was competent to act, and the sealing was not invalid for lack of delegation under rule 71. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed. As the godown had already been unsealed and the seized documents were to be returned in the connected proceeding, only consequential reliefs remained, namely adjustment of the security deposit and consideration of applications for road permits and declaration forms according to law. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:49:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158010 The power to seal a godown under section 14(5) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as available not only to the Commissioner but also to officers appointed under section 3(1) to assist him. On that basis, the Commercial Tax Officer was competent to act, and the sealing was not invalid for lack of delegation under rule 71. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed. As the godown had already been unsealed and the seized documents were to be returned in the connected proceeding, only consequential reliefs remained, namely adjustment of the security deposit and consideration of applications for road permits and declaration forms according to law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158010