https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163406 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. en-us Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:23:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163406 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163406