BHOWAL TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. S. K. Muktar, learned counsel and Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner, M/s. Bhowal Traders, is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor thereof. The petitioner-firm deals in the business of importing, exporting and sales of "dry fish" in the State of Assam having its place of business at Jagiroad in the District of Morigaon. The petitioner was served with the notice dated October 8, 2002 (annexure H) under sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act requiring petitioner No. 2, the proprietor of the firm to produce all the relevant books of account and other documents relating to the accounting years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 before the Inspector of Taxes, Morigaon. The said notice was issued in order to ascertain the correctness of the records of transaction maintained by the petitioners in course of their business and to verify the amount of taxes paid. On the same day, the Inspector of Taxes, on receipt of information that petitioner No. 2, the proprietor of petitioner No. 1 firm is carrying on business of selling and purchasing different categories of taxable goods in the name of non-existent firms, along with other official drafted from different districts carried out a search in the residential premises of petitioner No. 2 after serving notice to the landlord and seized certain documents. On that day the proprietor was out of station and as such the Inspector of Taxes had to serve the notice on the landlord and carried out the search as per provisions of section 44 of the Act.

(3.) WE may deal with the first two and fourth grounds together. Sub-section (3) of section 44 provides for seizure by an authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3, if such authority has reason to suspect that any dealer is likely to evade payment of any tax payable under the Act. The seizure undoubtedly has to be made with reasons to be recorded in writing. The seizure list (annexure J) shows that the search and seizure was conducted by the Inspector of Taxes, Morigaon in the presence of other officers from Kamrup and Nagaon Districts. The Inspector of Taxes who is authorised under the Act to conduct the search was assisted by other officers in the matter and, therefore, the impugned act of seizure cannot be faulted with merely because no team has been constituted by the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of section 45 of the Act. The validity and legality of a seizure duly effected by an authorised officer in accordance with the provisions of law cannot be dubbed and deprecated. Presence of officers from different districts or from the same district will not in any manner render it untenable in law. The seizure memo does not indicate that the officers present had played any overt role in effecting the search and seizure of the documents.