TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1982, some officers of the Bureau of Investigation paid a surprise visit to the place of business of the applicants at 72, Cotton Street (first floor) and made a thorough search of the place of business. They seized some documents and papers under two seizure-receipts, one of the seizure-receipts being under the Act of 1941 and the other seizure-receipt being under the Act of 1954. The applicants allege that they are not "dealer" within the meaning of the Act of 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder and as such, the seizure of the documents by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, is without any authority of law, bad and illegal. It is alleged that on or about April 8, 1982, an order was passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation for retaining the books of accounts seized by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, till March 31, 1983 and that thereafter the books and documents are being retained by the respondents without any further sanction for retention of these books and documents. It is further alleged that after the seizure of the books and documents on March 12, 1982, notices were is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailash Brothers. The kancha sale bills, cash memos, which were found at the place of business, were not supported by any proper bill or books of accounts. In view of these irregularities, the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, had reason to suspect that Messrs. Kailash Brothers of 72, Cotton Street was attempting to evade payment of sales tax under the Act of 1941 and the Act of 1954. Accordingly, he seized the available records and prepared a list of the goods then found at the godown of Messrs. Kailash Brothers. He also prepared a report which was countersigned by the representative of the applicants then present at the spot. It is alleged that as the applicants have been found to be indulging in the evasion of taxes imposed by the Act of 1941 and the Act of 1954, the specialised investigation unit of the Commercial Taxes Directorate had to move in accordance with the provisions of these two Acts in order to prevent the evasion of the payment of taxes imposed by these two Acts by the applicants. 4.. The applicants filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein it was alleged that the applicants could not take delivery of the consignment covered by the consignment not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to support this contention. The consignment note was seized on March 12, 1982 and as such, the commodities mentioned in the consignment note could not be imported into West Bengal from outside West Bengal by the applicants. On the basis of this solitary consignment note, the applicants cannot thus be stated to be the "dealer", as defined in section 2(b) of the Act of 1954. As the applicants cannot be said to be "dealer" within the meaning of the Act of 1954, there can be no search or seizure from the place of business of the applicants under section 13(2) of the Act of 1954. This contention of Mr. Chakraborty thus succeeds. 7.. The next contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that the retention of the papers and documents seized under section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 is illegal for contravention of rule 19 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954. This contention is also to be accepted. Under rule 19 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954, books of accounts, registers or documents seized under section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, on preparing a search-list, cannot be retained for more than one month without the sanction of the prescribed authority. By a notification dated June 1, 1987,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons already stated, the retention of the books and papers seized under the Act of 1954 for a period after March 31, 1983, is also illegal and the notices issued to Messrs. Kailash Brothers for production of books of accounts and records before the Bureau of Investigation are not in accordance with law. 9.. So far as the search and seizure under the Act of 1941 is concerned, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate for the applicants, has not seriously opposed the search and seizure under the Act of 1941. He cannot make any serious objection to such search and seizure, in view of the definition of the word "dealer" in section 2(c) of the Act of 1941, which runs as follows: "'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of selling goods in West Bengal or of purchasing goods in West Bengal in specified circumstances........." 10.. It is the case of the applicants that they purchase locally from different persons in Calcutta the articles, viz., dry fruits, kirana and groceries and sell these articles within West Bengal. Under section 14(3) of the Act of 1941, there can be seizure of accounts, registers or documents of a "dealer", if the Commissioner or any pers....