TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er expiry of one year from the date of seizure, there was no order for sanction of retention of the seized books of account and documents for any period beyond August 7, 1990. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent claimed that such a sanction was obtained and the sanction was communicated to the applicant under Memo No. 5880 dated August 8, 1990. This averment was made in paragraph 11 of the affidavit-inopposition. While dealing with this paragraph, the applicant stated in paragraph 7 of its affidavit-in-reply that no sanction for retention was actually obtained and therefore, the respondents could not retain the seized books of account any further. At the hearing, the learned State Representative has produced the records before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation thereof to the partnership firm were valid. Mr. Sumit Chakraborty, the learned advocate for the applicant referred to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oriental Rubber Works reported in [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC) and argued that the communication of such an order should be made as expeditiously as possible. According to him, in this case, the communication was not expeditious and furthermore it was made after the present application was filed. Having heard Mr. Chakraborty for the applicant and Mr. P.K. Chakraborty, the learned State Representative, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the applicant. We are of the opinion that there was no unreasonable delay in making the communi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treated as an event subsequent to the filing of the application and therefore, cannot be allowed to remain unnoticed in making a decision in this case. The next question is whether communication has been made so as to inform the applicant-firm of the reason given by the Commercial Tax Officer proposing retention of the seized books of account and papers. Column 2 of the sanction order shows the brief reason given by the Commercial Tax Officer for obtaining sanction under section 14(3A)(b) of the 1941 Act for retention. The reason is non-compliance on the part of the dealer. It is explained by the learned State Representative that this is the reason for which the investigation could not be completed, necessitating retention of the seized bo....