DEORALIA BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1, Messrs. Deoralia Brothers, is a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the said firm), within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its registered office at 26, Beniatolla Street, Calcutta. Petitioner No. 2," Shri Kisan Agarwal, is one of the partners of the said firm. .

(2.) It has been claimed that on or about 3rd August, 1973, on the basis of a purported raid in the shop of the petitioners, a seizure list under Section 14(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was made by the Inspectors of Commercial Taxes-cum-Investigation, Bureau of Investigation, being respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this rule, and various documents and records of the said firm were seized. Such seizure has been stated to be made on mere suspicion. Then by the memo dated 7th August, 1973, the petitioners were asked to appear before the Commercial Taxes-cum-Investigation Officer, with all books of account and documents relating to the business between the period from 1969-70. They were also asked to explain the books of account and records as seized.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they have been duly and regularly paying sales tax, without any complaint from anybody and as such it has claimed that the said memo dated 7th August, 1973, was absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, baseless, apart from being unwarranted. The petitioners, of course, gave their reply by their letter dated 27th August, 1973, to the officer concerned, informing thereby that they were deputing their representative, Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, to explain the case. In fact, it has been claimed that the said Shri Sharma appeared before the authorities concerned and made submissions on and explained the books of account. It has been claimed by the petitioners that in the facts of the case, there was no question of evasion of tax and such question would arise only after the assessment is completed and before that the Commercial Tax Officer was not competent to consider any tax return as false, inasmuch as before the assessment is completed, any dealer, can submit revised return in lieu of the return already filed. The petitioners have claimed that reasonable opportunities should be given by the Commercial Tax Officer to the assessee before coming to the conclusion on evasion of tax and in the instant case such opportunities have been denied. It was also contended that respondents Nos. 2 and 3, as mentioned above, acted beyond their authority and competence or jurisdiction, in the matter of seizure as made or withholding the documents in question as such action was resorted to without obtaining the prior sanction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.