JUDGMENT S. N. MUKHERJEE (Judicial Member). - This application under article 226 of the Constitution has been forwarded to this Tribunal by the High Court under section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. Assessment for the four quarters ending December 31, 1972 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1941", is under challenge in this applications. 2. The applicant's case, in short, is that it is a private limited company with its registered office at 25, Panchanantala Road, Patipukur, Calcutta-48. The applicant is carrying on business of manufacturing of automobile parts, agricultural implements and sheet metal components. The applicant is a dealer under the Act of 1941 and it maintains books of accounts regularly and its accounting year is from January to December each year. In terms of a contract with the Director-General, Supplies and Disposal, Government of india, "DGS & D" in short, the applicant supplied goods to the DGS & D. A part of the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 was delivered after the expiry of due date and the said DGS & D made risk purchase after cancellation of the part of goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 and made less payment of the bills for the said amount and a credit note was issued to that effect. The DGS & D never purchased the said goods for the value of Rs. 6,505.75 nor the applicant sold those goods to the DGS & D. Declaration forms covering the purchase excepting Rs. 6,505.75 were issued by the DGS & D in order to get exemption from payment of sales tax under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and the applicant claimed deduction accordingly. 3. The applicant had appointed Messrs. Auto Marketing Corporation of 8/1, Lalbazar Street, Calcutta-7, as the selling agent for distribution of goods manufactured by the applicant under an agreement dated April 13, 1966. In terms of the said agreement the applicant allowed a trade discount by way of commission on the catalogue price at 50 per cent prior to 1972 and 49 per cent in 1972. 4. In terms of the said agreement the applicant allowed a trade discount by way of commission on the catalogue price at 50 per cent prior to 1972 and 49 per cent in 1972. 4. The applicant has received a notice dated November 5, 1973, under section 14(1) of the Act of 1941 from the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation, whereby the applicant was asked to appear before the said officer on December 11, 1973, with his books of accounts and connected documents relating to his business for the period from 1971 till the date of production. The applicant's authorised representative appeared from time to time with all the books of accounts and other documents before the Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation and in course of the proceedings the said Inspector seized all the books of accounts and other documents produced before him on March 18, and 19, 1974, under section 14(3) of the Act of 1941. A declaration form being No. D-2/027524 supplied by Messrs. Industrial Mineral Syndicate against purchases made by it from the applicant was also seized. The books of accounts and other documents seized on March 18 and 19, 1974, are still lying with the Bureau of Investigation. The seized documents are being retained by extending the date of retention from time to time without allowing the applicant any opportunity of being heard. The last order of retention was passed on June 28, 1983 extending the date of retention up to June 30, 1984. 5. In the return for the period of four quarters ending December 31, 1972, the applicant had shown gross turnover at Rs. 25,20,670.88 and claimed deductions under sections 5(2)(a)(ii) and 5(2)(a)(v) of the Act of 1941 from the gross turnover. Respondent No. 3 who is the concerned Commercial Tax Officer enhanced the gross turnover to Rs. 27,46,465.57 and disallowed in part the claims of the applicant. Respondent No. 3 has, in fact, disallowed the claim for deduction of goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 which was cancelled by the DGS & D and the claim of Rs. 3,502 made on account of expenditure incurred for extra structure of the factory which was reimbursed by the landlord on vacating the premises. Respondent No. 3 has, in fact, disallowed the claim for deduction of goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 which was cancelled by the DGS & D and the claim of Rs. 3,502 made on account of expenditure incurred for extra structure of the factory which was reimbursed by the landlord on vacating the premises. Respondent No. 3 raised objection against the claim of trade discount at the rate of 49 per cent on the catalogue price to M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation and allowed deduction at the rate of 10 per cent on the catalogue price. He disallowed a claim of Rs. 17,325 by rejecting a declaration form No. D-2/027524 supplied by M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate and has also disallowed another claim of Rs. 20,625.30 under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and passed the impugned assessment order on December 23, 1976. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2 by an order dated February 12, 1980 respondent No. 2 allowed the applicant's claim of Rs. 3,502 on account of expenditure incurred for extra structure of the factory which was reimbursed the landlord and also partially allowed a claim of Rs. 273.25 out of Rs. 6,505.75 on account of short supply of goods and less payment of bills by the DGS & D. As regards the trade discount of 49 per cent allowed to M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation, respondent No. 2 enhanced the trade discount to 30 per cent from 10 per cent allowed by respondent No. 3. The Assistant Commissioner has disallowed the applicant's claim of Rs. 17,325 in respect of declaration form No. D-2/027524 and also the other claim of Rs. 20,625.30. The applicant went in revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, respondent No. 1, against the impugned order dated February 12, 1980 passed by respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner. By an order dated May 4, 1982, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, respondent No. 1, deleted only the penalty of Rs. 25 for late submission of return, but otherwise made no interference with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The applicant preferred a review against the order of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, but by an order dated July 7, 1983, the review application was rejected. 6. The impugned assessment for the four quarters ending December 31, 1972, on the revised turnover of Rs. The applicant preferred a review against the order of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, but by an order dated July 7, 1983, the review application was rejected. 6. The impugned assessment for the four quarters ending December 31, 1972, on the revised turnover of Rs. 27,00,959.84 made by the Assistant Commissioner and accepted by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal is bad in law as the levy of tax on Rs. 6,232.50 which represented the value of a part of the goods cancelled by the DGS & D is unauthorized. The sum of Rs. 6,232.50 never became payable to the applicant as part of the sale price which expression has been defined in section 2(h) of the Act of 1941 to mean the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods. "Sale" has been defined in section 2(g) of the Act of 1941 to mean any transfer of property in goods for consideration. As there was no transfer of property in the goods valued at Rs. 6,232.50, the contract with the DGS & D in so far as it related to the goods delivered belatedly stood cancelled in terms of the contract itself. The said sum of Rs. 6,232.50 should have been excluded from the turnover of sales. The discount at 49 per cent allowed to M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation should have been accepted and the discount actually allowed by the applicant should have been deducted from its turnover of sale. As regards disallowance of Rs. 17,325 claimed under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941, the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively should not have been passed as the declaration form No. D-2/027524 supplied by M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate was seized by the Bureau of Investigation and was produced before the respondent No. 3. Similarly, the claim of Rs. 20,625.30 under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941 should not have been disallowed. The books of account and other documents illegally seized and retained without allowing any opportunity to the applicant of being heard, is bad in law and unauthorised by statute. The applicant, therefore, prays for quashing the order of assessment dated December 23, 1976, passed by respondent No. 3 and subsequent orders dated February 12, 1980, May 4, 1982 and July 7, 1983, passed respectively by respondents Nos. 2 and 1. The applicant, therefore, prays for quashing the order of assessment dated December 23, 1976, passed by respondent No. 3 and subsequent orders dated February 12, 1980, May 4, 1982 and July 7, 1983, passed respectively by respondents Nos. 2 and 1. The applicant also prays for quashing the order of retention dated June 28, 1983, of the seized documents passed by respondent No. 6, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation. 7. The respondents by an affidavit-in-opposition have contested the case. Their case, in short, is that the Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim of Rs. 6,505.75 on the ground of delay of six months in returning the goods. The Assistant Commissioner on appeal allowed a claim of Rs. 273.25 which he found admissible. The balance amount of Rs. 6,232.50 was not allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and the disallowance was upheld by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The said amount of Rs. 6,232.50 cannot form part of the sale price within the meaning of its definition. The agency agreement between the applicant and M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation was never produced at any stage and so the Commercial Tax Officer rightly disallowed the claim and only allowed discount at the rate of 10 per cent. The allowance of discount was raised by the Assistant Commissioner to 30 per cent. In the absence of agreement of discount at the rate of 49 per cent the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. The claim of Rs. 17,325 in respect of declaration form No. D-2/027524 has been rightly disallowed as in the challan issued in connection with the sale to M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate there was no mention of the mode of delivery and there was no date of actual delivery of the goods sold to that party. Again, the claim of Rs. 20,625.30 has been rightly disallowed as no declaration form was produced by the applicant. The seizure of the books of accounts and other documents is legal and valid. Retention of the seized books of accounts and documents has been sanctioned from time to time according to law and law does not require that before granting sanction of retention a dealer should be given an opportunity of being heard. 8. The applicant has filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein he has reiterated his case in the main application. 9. Mr. Retention of the seized books of accounts and documents has been sanctioned from time to time according to law and law does not require that before granting sanction of retention a dealer should be given an opportunity of being heard. 8. The applicant has filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein he has reiterated his case in the main application. 9. Mr. A. K. Roy Chowdhury, appearing for the applicant, has contended that respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 in their impugned orders dated December 23, 1976, February 12, 1980 and May 4, 1982 respectively have failed to appreciate that goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 for which a bill was raised in terms of contract with DGS & D, was, in fact, cancelled for the belated supply of the said goods and no price was paid and a credit note was issued for the said amount of Rs. 6,505.75. He has also contended that no declaration form in respect of the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 was issued. The claim for deduction of Rs. 6,505.75 should have been, therefore, allowed. As regards the claim of discount at the rate of 49 per cent in favour of M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation, Mr. Roy Chowdhury's contention is that the entire claim of discount at the rate of 49 per cent should have been allowed in view of the agreement between the applicant and M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation. The third point urged by Mr. A. K. Roy Chowdhury is that the applicant's claim of deduction of Rs. 17,325 in respect of declaration form No. D-2/027524 issued by M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate should have been allowed as the declaration form along with other documents was seized by the Inspector, Bureau of Investigation on March 18, 1974 and it was in the custody of the respondents. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has submitted that as regards the claim for deduction of Rs. 20,625.30 under section 5(2)(a)(ii), the applicant could not produce declaration forms and so there is no material on record in support of the claim for deduction of the said amount. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has seriously challenged the retention of the seized books of accounts and other documents beyond the statutory period and citing a decision reported in [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oriental Rubber Works) has contended that it was incumbent upon the Bureau of Investigation and also respondents Nos. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has seriously challenged the retention of the seized books of accounts and other documents beyond the statutory period and citing a decision reported in [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oriental Rubber Works) has contended that it was incumbent upon the Bureau of Investigation and also respondents Nos. 6 and 7, being Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation and Inspector, Bureau of Investigation respectively, to communicate to the applicant the approval of retention beyond June 28, 1984 and the reasons recorded for obtaining sanction for retention beyond June 28, 1984. 10. Mr. T. N. De, learned State Representative, drew our attention to paragraph 10 (towards the end) of the application wherein the applicant has stated that after the rejection of the review petition the applicant filed a reference application before respondent No. 1 which is still pending. Mr. De has contended that the applicant having preferred a reference against the order of review dated July 7, 1983 passed by respondent No. 1, he cannot pursue the present application as otherwise that will amount to pursuing parallel remedies. Mr. De has contended that the challenge against the assessment order is, in fact, a challenge against the findings of fact and so the applicant cannot be allowed to challenge successfully findings of fact arrived at by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. As regards the retention of the books of accounts and documents, Mr. De has conceded that though the last retention order has been passed on June 11, 1993 sanctioning retention of the seized documents up to June 30, 1994, such retention and sanction for retention having not been communicated to the applicant, the same would be bad in law in view of this Tribunal's judgment reported in [1992] 87 STC 465 (Ram Kumar Roshanlal v. C.T.O.). Mr. De has contended that the seized documents and books of accounts may be returned to the applicant after his authentication of xerox copies of those documents. 11. Though Mr. De, learned State Representative, has drawn our attention to the applicant's allegation that he filed a reference application before respondent No. 1 which is still pending, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents does not disclose anything on this point. 11. Though Mr. De, learned State Representative, has drawn our attention to the applicant's allegation that he filed a reference application before respondent No. 1 which is still pending, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents does not disclose anything on this point. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition the allegations in paragraph 10 of the application have been traversed, but no point has been taken in the affidavit-in-opposition about the reference application. Mr. A. K. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the applicant, has contended that a reference application cannot be treated as an application for a parallel remedy. As the point has not been traversed in the affidavit-in-opposition, we are unable to know the contents and the nature of the reference application. Furthermore, in the present application under article 226 of the Constitution the applicant has seriously challenged the retention of the seized books of account and documents beyond the statutory period and has also put forward a case how the seizure of a declaration form being No. D-2/027524 supplied by M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate has affected his claim for deduction. We, therefore, fail to see how a reference application against the order of review dated July 7, 1983 passed by respondent No. 1 can affect the maintainability of the present application. Accordingly we propose to consider the other points raised before us. 12. In paragraph 3 of his application the applicant has stated that a part of the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 was delivered after due date and as a result the DGS & D made risk purchase after cancellation of the said part of the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 and made less payment on the bills to the extent of Rs. 6,505.75 and a credit note was issued to that effect. In paragraph 7 of their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have traversed the applicant's case in paragraph 3. Beyond stating that the learned Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground of goods having been returned after a lapse of six months, nothing has been stated by the respondents regarding sale or sale price. Respondent No. 3 disallowed the claim on the ground that the goods have been returned after six months from the date of receipt. Respondent No. 2 found that the purchasing Government department actually made less payment to the extent of Rs. 6,232.50, but the sales related to bills of previous years. Respondent No. 3 disallowed the claim on the ground that the goods have been returned after six months from the date of receipt. Respondent No. 2 found that the purchasing Government department actually made less payment to the extent of Rs. 6,232.50, but the sales related to bills of previous years. He has allowed a claim of deduction to the extent of Rs. 273.25 for a bill made on Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay. It is to be noted that the sum of Rs. 273.25 together with Rs. 6232.50 make a total of Rs. 6,505.75. Respondent No. 2 appears to have disallowed the claim of Rs. 6,232.50 as the applicant could not produce a certificate by a registered accountant under rule 48(4)(b) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. Out of a claim of deduction for Rs. 6,505.75 respondent No. 2 allowed a part of the claim being Rs. 273.25. Respondent No. 1 by his judgment dated May 4, 1982, observed that the sale price was undoubtedly the amount for which the bills were submitted and the deductions being in the nature of penalty presumably under the terms of the contract, there is no ground why the petitioner's turnover should exclude the said deductions. In his opinion the disallowance was rightly made. In the review order dated July 7, 1983, the earlier order dated May 4, 1982, was confirmed. It appears to us that the claim of deduction for cancellation of goods supplied in terms of contract with DGS & D has been treated differently at different levels. At the level of Commercial Tax Officer the claim was disallowed as the goods were returned long after six months. At the level of the Assistant Commissioner major part of the claim was disallowed as the applicant did not produce certificate of a registered accountant under rule 48(4)(b) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. And at the level of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal the claim was disallowed as the deductions were made presumably as a penalty under the terms of the contract. What is, however, apparent is that the supply of goods was cancelled as the DGS & D had to make risk purchase for delayed supply and no payment was made for the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75. Mr. What is, however, apparent is that the supply of goods was cancelled as the DGS & D had to make risk purchase for delayed supply and no payment was made for the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has drawn our attention to the definition of "sale" in section 2(g) and "sale price" in section 2(h) of the Act of 1941 and has contended that after the cancellation of the part of the contract for the supply of goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75, the said sum never became payable to the applicant as part of the "sale price". He has also contended that there was no transfer of property in the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75. As there was no transfer of property in the goods valued at Rs. 6,505.75 and as the sale price for that amount was not payable to the applicant, the claim for deduction of Rs. 6,505.75 appears to be a sound claim. It should not have been disallowed either wholly or in part. We would, therefore, allow the applicant's claim of deduction for the entire amount of Rs. 6,505.75. 13. The next point urged by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the applicant, is that the applicant in terms of an agreement with M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation allowed a discount to the extent of 49 per cent on the catalogue price, but the respondent No. 3 allowed only 10 per cent and in appeal respondent No. 2 raised the discount to 30 per cent. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has cited a decision reported in [1980] 45 STC 251 (SC) (Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Aluminium Industries Ltd.) and has contended that the discount allowed by the dealer cannot be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. Mr. T. N. De, learned State Representative, has contended that on a consideration of the materials on record the respondent No. 2 raised the discount to 30 per cent and this being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with. The applicant's allegation that the agreement in connection with the discount was produced before the Commercial Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner and the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, has been denied by the respondents. The applicant's allegation that the agreement in connection with the discount was produced before the Commercial Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner and the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, has been denied by the respondents. In paragraph 20 of their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have specifically stated that the story of the agency agreement was for the first time told in paragraph 17 of the application and that at the stage of assessment, appeal and revision there was no mention of agency agreement before the concerned authorities. In the assessment order dated December 23, 1976 the Commercial Tax Officer has noted that the rate of commission is exorbitant and not in accordance with the trade practices. According to him, the normal rate of commission varies between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. He allowed 10 per cent. The Assistant Commissioner in his order dated February 12, 1980 has clearly observed that the agency agreement dated April 13, 1966 was valid for 5 years from April 28, 1966. The alleged renewed agency was not produced before him and so the claim of 49 per cent commission was not verifiable with reference to the agency agreement. In his order dated May 4, 1982, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal found that in 1970 the agency agreement was renewed, but the petitioner wrote to the distributor that the renewal was without any change of the terms and conditions stipulated in the earlier agreement except the discount factor. M/s. Auto Marketing corporation communicated their consent to the petitioner's proposal by a letter. Thus the parties kept the discount factor open for further discussion and it is not known whether subsequently any agreement was arrived at in respect of the same. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal further observed that, as a matter of fact, there was no agreement before him to show that the petitioner agreed to pay commission at the rate of 49 per cent to the distributor. He, therefore, found no basis for the claim of 49 per cent discount. He agreed with the Assistant Commissioner's allowance of 30 per cent discount. Though the applicant has filed an affidavit-agreement for a commission of 49 per cent was not produced at any stage. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit-in-reply there is a mere denial of the specific allegations in paragraph 20 of the affidavit-in-opposition. He agreed with the Assistant Commissioner's allowance of 30 per cent discount. Though the applicant has filed an affidavit-agreement for a commission of 49 per cent was not produced at any stage. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit-in-reply there is a mere denial of the specific allegations in paragraph 20 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The Assistant Commissioner on a scrutiny of the facts and materials before him found that the commission was allowed before delivery of goods. In other cases margin of commission allowed by the applicant was not higher than 24 per cent. He found the claim of 49 per cent beyond justification. It, therefore, appears to us that on a consideration of the facts and materials before him the Assistant Commissioner allowed 30 per cent trade discount. This finding was not disturbed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The decision reported in [1980] 45 STC 251 (SC) (Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Aluminium Industries Ltd.) cited by the applicant's learned Advocate, Mr. A. K. Roy Chowdhury, is not attracted in the present case as discount has been allowed. What is in dispute is the rate of discount. The rate of discount having been allowed at 30 per cent on a consideration of the facts and materials before the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and the appreciation of those facts and materials being not impermissible or perverse, we are not inclined to disturb the finding based on the facts and materials on record. We are, therefore, of opinion that the claim of the applicant for discount at the rate of 49 per cent cannot be sustained. 14. With regard to the applicant's claim of deduction of Rs. 17,325 under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941 in connection with declaration form being No. D-2/027524 supplied by M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the applicant, has contended that the deduction claimed should have been allowed as it is based on a declaration form. Mr. De, learned State Representative, has contended that M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate being a non-existent firm, the transaction is not genuine and it has been rightly disallowed. The assessment order dated December 23, 1976 shows that the claim has been disallowed as the dealer is non-existent. Mr. De, learned State Representative, has contended that M/s. Industrial Mineral Syndicate being a non-existent firm, the transaction is not genuine and it has been rightly disallowed. The assessment order dated December 23, 1976 shows that the claim has been disallowed as the dealer is non-existent. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claim as the challan had no indication of the mode of delivery or the date of receipt by the purchasing dealer. Moreover, it is the same party which furnished no declaration in respect of other sale bill for Rs. 20,625.30. This finding of the Assistant Commissioner has been accepted by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal as the declaration form and other pieces of evidence including the bill and the challan were not produced before him. The disallowance of the claim of Rs. 17,325 in respect of a declaration form being No. D-027524 and also a further sum of Rs. 20,625.30 is based on appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. The genuineness of the transaction has not been accepted by the respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1. The appreciation of the facts and evidence by respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 does not suffer from any illegality. The disallowance being based on finding of fact, we are unable to disturb the said findings. 15. In the result, we would allow a claim of deduction for an amount of Rs. 6,505.75 which includes Rs. 273.25 already allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the appreciation of the facts and evidences with regard to the applicant's claim of trade discount at the rate of 49 per cent to M/s. Auto Marketing Corporation or with regard to the applicant's claim of deduction of Rs. 17,325 under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941 or with regard to the applicant's claim of deduction of Rs. 20,625.30 under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941. The gross turnover figure arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2, should be reduced by a sum of Rs. 6,232.50 as he had already allowed Rs. 273.25 out of a claim of Rs. 6,505.75. 16. In view of the submissions of Mr. De, learned State Representative, we would allow the applicant's prayer for the return of the documents and books of accounts seized by the Bureau of Investigation. 17. 6,232.50 as he had already allowed Rs. 273.25 out of a claim of Rs. 6,505.75. 16. In view of the submissions of Mr. De, learned State Representative, we would allow the applicant's prayer for the return of the documents and books of accounts seized by the Bureau of Investigation. 17. In the above view of the matter, the application is disposed of as under : The revised gross turnover arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 2 shall be reduced by a sum of Rs. 6,232.50 for the purposes of assessment. The impugned orders dated December 23, 1976, February 12, 1980, May 4, 1982 and July 7, 1983, passed respectively by respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 stand modified accordingly. The applicant shall be entitled to the benefits of the interim order dated February 24, 1984, passed by the High Court to the extent of modification of the amount of gross turnover, if the applicant had in fact complied with the said order. Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 shall return the seized books of accounts and documents within 6 weeks from date after obtaining authentication by the applicant or his representative on xerox copies prepared by the said respondents. In the circumstances of the case no cost is allowed. M. K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member). - I agree.