KESHARDEO SANTHALIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cases involve identical questions of fact and law. The cases have been heard analogously and this judgment shall govern both of them.

(2.) THE cases arise out of two separate applications filed by the applicants challenging the propriety of search and seizure of certain notified goods and notified commodities on 20th March, 1989 and 18th May, 1989, at the place of business of the applicants, namely, Pratap Cold Storage situated at 15/16, Botanical Garden Lane, Sibpore, Howrah. The applicants 1 to 3 are the partners carrying on the said business under the name and style of Messrs. Pratap Company and the applicant No. 4 is an employee of the said business.

(3.) IT is the case of the applicants that the cold storage owners did not import the goods and store them in the cold storage. Specified places were allotted to different hirers intending to keep the goods in the storage and receipts were issued to them after making corresponding entries in the appropriate register maintained at the cold storage. The search and seizure were conducted purely on suspicion, conjecture and assumption that the cold storage owner himself had imported the goods into West Bengal in violation of the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the Entry Tax Act. It is further the case of the applicants that the search and seizure were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The applicants have also alleged that the actions complained of were violative of Articles 14, 21, 265, 300A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged that a similar search, seizure and detention of goods were made by the respondents sometime in May, 1981, for which the applicants were obliged to file a writ application in the High Court. The respondents did not follow up the proceedings and contest the same. The respondents after effecting the seizure, served a notice upon the applicants requiring them to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed, and this they did without giving the applicants a reasonable opportunity of being heard and no material was disclosed to the applicants to explain why the search and seizure were effected. The respondents had no authority to raid the cold storage and invoke any jurisdiction under any of the provisions of the Sales Tax Acts and the rules framed thereunder. The conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction to make search and seizure of the goods kept there by different hirers having not been satisfied, the action of the respondents was illegal and in excess of their jurisdiction. The applicants were under no obligation under the West Bengal Cold Storage (Licensing and Regulation) Act, 1966, to look for permits or other documents from intending hirers to satisfy itself as to whether they had valid permits for importation of the goods into West Bengal or not. The applicants cannot be prevented from releasing the goods to the hirers or other transferees on presentation of the cold storage receipt which is a negotiable instrument. The seizure effected by the respondents prevents the cold storage owners from performing their obligation under the Cold Storage (Licensing and Regulation) Act, 1966. The search and seizure were effected without any purpose or foundation and the seizure is accordingly liable to be quashed and set aside. The notice requiring the applicants to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed is likewise bad and liable to be quashed. Mainly on the grounds stated above, the applicants have prayed for an order commanding the respondents not to proceed with the penalty proceedings and not to give further effect to the impugned notices, for a direction prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the notices and for a declaration that the applicants cannot be brought within the mischief of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 or West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954.