TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of the search and seizure. Then Mr. Bhattacharjee has argued that the seizure took place on March 23, 1992. The retention order was communicated to the applicant by registered post with acknowledgement due and it was received by the applicant on March 24, 1993. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, communication of the retention order being after expiry of one year from the date of seizure, the retention order becomes invalid and accordingly the seized books of account and documents should be returned to the applicant. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oriental Rubber Works reported in [1984] 145 ITR 477 at pages 481 to 483 and submits that a retention order does not become effective without commu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D to the applicant on March 11, 1993 and it was received by the applicant on March 24, 1993. We have examined the postal acknowledgement card and found that really the communication was received by the applicant on March 24, 1993. According to Mr. De, since the one year period expired on March 22, 1993, the competent authority was within his power to obtain sanction under proviso (b) even on March 23, 1993 and therefore, according to Mr. De, communication on March 24, 1993, the date thereafter, was a proper communication and there was no invalidity in the retention order. He submitted further that in the case of Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC) the court has observed that communication should be made as expeditiously as possibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25 STA 276, the observation made by this Tribunal was that in those particular cases the sanction orders and reasons for obtaining sanction were not communicated before expiry of the stipulated period or shortly thereafter. That observation should be understood in the context of the facts of that case. There the one year period expired on January 23, 1991. The retention order was passed on January 11, 1991. But the communication was transmitted by memo No. 1451 dated March 12, 1991. Therefore, in that case also the question did not arise for determination as to whether communication shortly after expiry of the period of one year should be treated as valid communication so as to protect the retention order. In fact, in that case the communic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents, etc., seized on March 23, 1992 should be returned to the applicant. Since we are upholding the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee on this point, we do not intend to enter into the other questions which might have been agitated by the applicant against the seizure and the alleged search. All those questions regarding the alleged search and seizure are left open. In the result, the application is allowed. The retention order for the seized books of account and documents, etc., passed on March 10, 1993 and received by the applicant on March 24, 1993 is quashed. Respondents are directed to return forthwith the books of account and documents, etc., seized on March 23, 1992 to the applicant. Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Represent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time of directing release of the goods seized on March 23, 1992. He submits that a direction may be given to the Commercial Tax Officer to complete a proceeding under section 6 read with section 7(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, regarding the seized goods which were released to the applicants under the interim order of this Tribunal. According to Mr. De, the amount of security deposited by the applicant may abide the ultimate result of the proceeding under section 7(2) read with section 6 of the 1954 Act. After hearing both sides, we direct that the Commercial Tax Officer concerned will be at liberty to initiate and complete a proceeding under section 7(2) read with section 6 of the 1954 Act after giving the applicant an opp....