LexASST. COMMNR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. versus RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 7 S.C.R. 297 ...... ~ ASST. COMMNR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. A v. RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No.7231 of 2002) APRIL 24, 2008 B (ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 - s.66 proviso (a) & (b) - Seizure of dealer's accounts - Retention of seized records beyond prescribed period of one year - Conditions to be c ...,, fulfilled - Held: Commissioner or Additional Commissioner I as also officer appointed to assist Commissioner is to record reasons in writing for extending the period - Such officer is to seek approval of Commissioner also, otherwise retention is unlawful - However, there is no requirement to convey the D •· ... reasons to assessee and that too before expiry of one year of seizure - On facts, order of High Court holding that reasons had to be communicated to assessee before expiry of one year of seizure and assessee was to be heard before passing such order, set aside to that extent -Additional Commissioner E while granting sanction to retain seized records fulfilled the condition prescribed - Delay in receiving such order was not prejudicial to assessee - Moreover, books of accounts/ documents were returned to assessee, thus, appeal rendered infructuous - Further, in case investigation or assessment is .. ·,; incomplete then as and when called upon assessee is to F produce books of accounts before the Authorities. On 18.10.2000, the Commercial Tax Officer seized the books of accounts and documents of the respondent- dealer uls 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 for G ,/ carrying out the investigation. However, the assessment ·} could not be completed within one year as stipulated u/s 66 of the Act. Respondent was issued notice to show cause as to why seized records should not be retained 297 H 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A for further period of one year but none appeared. By order dated 12.10.2001, the Additional Commissioner granted sanction for retention of seized records till 18.10.2002 to enable the investigation officer to complete the examination of seized records. Respondent received B notice as also sanction on 22.10.01. Respondent filed application seeking a direction to assessing officer to forthwith release the books of accounts and documents seized and to quash the order dated 12.10~2001 on the ground that the respondent was not given any c opportunity before passing the order. The tribunal allowed the application holding that the order of retention had be.come invalid as the same was not communicated to the applicant within the prescribed period of limitation. Aggrieved, appellants filed writ application. High Court 0 dismissed the same holding that sanction to retain the seized records was not in conformity with proviso (b) to s. 66 of the Act. It held that the entire exercise was undertaken in a mechanical way as the order did not mention whether the notice of hearing was received by the respondent; or whether he had been heard or not or E as to why was it necessary to retain the seized records for examination for another year, although the said record had already been in custody of the appellant for a period of one year. Hence the present appeal. F Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A reading of proviso (a) and (b) of s. 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1994 makes it clear that either of the two conditions must be fulfilled before such extension is given, viz. (a) reasons in writing must be G recorded by the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner for extending the period or by a person appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section.3 to assist the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner and (b) if the books are to be retained by an officer appointed under H sub-Section(1) of Section 3 to assist the Commissioner ... ' ' . ' ,. , -' ASST. COMMNR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. v. 299 RUCH! SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. then that officer shall not retain the seized books beyond A the prescribed period unless he records reasons in writing therefor and seeks approval of the Commissioner. (Para 9) [304-D, E, F] 1.2 An inference can well be drawn from these two provisions that if either of these two conditions are not B fulfilled, such extension shall become unlawful and the concerned officer has to return the books or documents forthwith. However, a bare perusal of the proviso (a) and (b) of Section 66 would show that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.