AJANTA METAL MART Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the Central Sales Tax Act. On 24th March, 1983 the authorised officials of the sales tax department entered the office premises of the petitioner at No. 123/2, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta-6. One Sri Mahendra Prosad Jaiswal, an employee of the petitioner was present at that time and he was requested to produce the books and documents relating to the business of the petitioner-firm. Sri Jaiswal produced only a book which appeared to be a rough sales register for the period 11th August, 1982 to 11th November, 1982. The cash book, ledger, bill register and other books of the business could not be produced. Sri Jaiswal was requested to produce the related books and documents. The request was not complied with. Thereupon the officials of the sales tax department searched the premises and found 178 account slips containing various transactions which no one present in the establishment could explain. It has been stated on affidavit, by Sri Swapan Chowdhury, an Inspector of Commercial Taxes, that he had reason to suspect that the petitioner was attempting to evade payment of sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The books and documents found in the business premises were seized. A seizure list was prepared and Sri Jaiswal put his signature on the said seizure list a copy of which was given to him. A separate report was prepared stating reasons for suspecting that the petitioner was evading sales tax. The report was also shown to Sri Jaiswal and his signature was obtained on the report. It has been stated in the affidavit by Sri Swapan Chowdhury that the report was prepared before the seizure of the documents and the preparation of the seizure list.

(2.) The first contention raised in this case by the petitioner is that the search was unlawful. It has been argued that since the search was unlawful, the seizure of the books and documents was also unlawful and the respondents must be directed to forthwith return the seized books and documents and the slips to the petitioner. It has been argued that Section 14(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, did not permit the Commissioner or any authorised official to search the business premises of the petitioner. The power of search is to be found in Section 14(4). But in order to apply the provisions of Sub-section (4) the Commissioner must have :

(3.) It has been emphasised that the power of search and seizure given in Section 14(4) is in aid of the power of inspection and seizure conferred by Sub-sections (2) and (3).