Judgment ( 1. ) PRAYER in the petition is to quash proceedings of Annexure-P-1, whereby search and seizure has been made at the premises of the petitioner. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to return all the books of account and documents illegally seized by the respondents, without authority of law. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that on 22-5-2000 the respondent No. 1 alongwith his associates, under the alleged authority of respondent No. 1 raided the business premises of the petitioner at about 11. 30 AM and in the course of the said raid, without following the mandatory procedure seized the accounts, documents etc. specified by them in the Seizure Memo dated 22-5-2000. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of two parties, namely, Shri Satyanarain S/o Shri Kanmalji Laddha and Shri Anil S/o shri Krishanlaji Laddha and engaged in the business of transportation since last more than twenty five years. Further case of the petitioner is that petitioner is only a Transporter of goods and is not a dealer within the meaning of the provisions of MP Commercial Tax Act, 1994 Act, which shall be referred hereinafter as Act. It is submitted that the word, "dealer" has been defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act. The effect of it is that provisions of MPCT Act are not applicable to the Transporter who is not a dealer and who is carrying merely transporting activities. It is further alleged that Selection 45 of MPCT act, 1994 relates to Constitution of a Committee for detection checking of evasion of tax by dealers liable to pay tax and powers of the Commissioner acting upon the report of such committee. Relevant part of Section is sub-section (1)to sub-section (2-A) which reads as under:- " (1) The State Government may constitute a committee for detection and investigation of evasion of tax under this Act or the act repealed by this Act. The committee shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may determine. The committee shall be assisted by such officers specified in Section 3 as the State Government may appoint for the purposes. The authority and the officers appointed to assist it shall perform such functions as the State Government may direct. The committee shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may determine. The committee shall be assisted by such officers specified in Section 3 as the State Government may appoint for the purposes. The authority and the officers appointed to assist it shall perform such functions as the State Government may direct. (2) If upon any information which has come into its possession the committee has reason to believe that any dealer has evaded payment of tax or is indulging in evasion of tax under this Act or under the Act repealed by this Act, it may draw its report in the matter and sent it to the Commissioner to investigate into the tax evasion by such dealer. " ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the reply it is evident that the powers has been exercised in the present case under sub-section (2-A) of Section 45 of the Act. It is submitted that in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2-A) of the Act, two things are necessary:- (i) There should be a dealer, who is attempting to evade pay-ment of tax. (ii) The committee should have reason to believe that any dealer has evaded payment of tax, it may draw its report and sent it to the Commissioner to investigate into the tax evasion by such dealer. (iii) Thirdly in emergent cases, Commissioner has reasons to be recorded in writing, proceed to investigate into tax evasion by such dealer. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel submits that since petitioner was not a dealer and no reason has been recorded by the Commissioner on or before 11. 30 AM on 22-5-2000, when the raid took place, therefore, whole proceedings are illegal, unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed. ( 5. ) RELIANCE has been placed on a decision in the matter of Income Tax officer, Special Investigation Circle "b" Meerut Vs. Seth Brothers and others, reported in Vol. 74, (1969) Income Tax Reports, 836, wherein while exercising the powers of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the taxpayer, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the law authorizes it to be exercised. 74, (1969) Income Tax Reports, 836, wherein while exercising the powers of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the taxpayer, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the law authorizes it to be exercised. If the action of the officer issuing the authorisation or of the designated officer is challenged, the officer concerned must satisfy the court about the regularity of his action. If the action is maliciously taken or power under the section is exercised for a collateral purposes, it is liable to be struck down by the Court. If the conditions for the exercise of the power are not satisfied the proceeding is liable to be quashed. " ( 6. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of State of west Bengal and others Vs. Oriental Rubber Works, reported in Vol. 39, 1977 sales Tax Cases, 333, wherein High Court of Calcutta has considered the aspect of Pre- existence of a purpose so specified is a condition precedent to holding of a search. When a search and seizure was made for the purpose of sub-section (3)before the authority competent to make a search under sub-section (4) goes to conduct a search, he must necessarily hold a bonafide suspicion that the person whose premises is to be searched is a dealer who is evading or attempting to evade payment of taxes and he must also form an opinion that for the purpose of detection or prevention of such evasion of payment of taxes, it would be necessary to seize material accounts, registers and documents from the dealer. " once he arrives at this mental state, he goes to search the premises where, on his information, he believes the accounts, registers and documents are kept. " Such a conclusion follows from the Scheme of Section itself. ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed in the matter of Siliguri Steels Ltd. , and others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Suri Charge, Birbum and others, reported in vol. " Such a conclusion follows from the Scheme of Section itself. ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed in the matter of Siliguri Steels Ltd. , and others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Suri Charge, Birbum and others, reported in vol. 116, 1999 Sales Tax Cases, 116, wherein West Bengal Taxation Tribunal while exercising the matter of seizure in the light of Section 14 (3) of the Bengal finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 observed that provisions are unambiguous and are to the effect that before a seizure takes place, the competent authority making the seizure should have reason to suspect that the dealer is attempting to evade payment of tax under the 1941 Act, and he may proceed to effect the seizure only after recording the reasons in writing. It was further observed that language used in the closing portions of the relevant recorded reasons in all the four cases, clearly indicated that the seizures had been effected and the seizure receipts had been prepared and made over the persons concerned, prior to the point of time when the reasons were recorded or the "reports" were written. In other words, the reasons were not recorded prior to the commencement of the seizure. The recordings were the only evidence as to whether or not the required "reason to suspect" was entertained. Failure to record the reasons prior to effecting the seizures vitiated the actions. " ( 8. ) IN the reply it is mentioned that respondent has already material in their possession proving the activities of the petitioner and moreover dealing with petroleum products as dealer. It is further alleged that after having the evidence and proof from M/s Indian Oil Corporation and after following the procedure the premises were raided on 22-5-2000 and the documents were seized. Learned Counsel for the respondents is ready with the record to demonstrate that there were reasons to believe and evidence to show that the petitioner was evading the tax. ( 9. ) FROM perusal of the record produced by the respondents, it is evident that on 24-7-2000, confidential letter has been written by the commissioner Commercial Tax to the Dy. Commissioner, whereby it was directed to collect the records from the office of Sales Manager of the petroleum Companies. ( 9. ) FROM perusal of the record produced by the respondents, it is evident that on 24-7-2000, confidential letter has been written by the commissioner Commercial Tax to the Dy. Commissioner, whereby it was directed to collect the records from the office of Sales Manager of the petroleum Companies. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 11-5-2000 headed by the Commissioner Commercial Tax Officer in which this aspect was considered that petroleum products are being sent by the Petroleum Companies from out of the State to the Industrial Units in the State. Thereafter on 22-5-2000, letter has been written by the Dy. Commissioner Commercial Tax, Indore to collector, Indore, wherein it is mentioned that upon inspection it was found that the petitioner firm is running a transport company. This transport Company is transporting Diesel and other petroleum products for the industrial units from outside State of M. P. , in the State of MP. It was also observed that primafacie it appears that the tax of Rs. 19. 23 crores has been evaded by the petitioner firm. ( 10. ) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that the petitioner is not a dealer and before proceeding in the matter, the Commissioner has not recorded the reasons in writing, therefore the action of respondents cannot be held in accordance with law. Under Section 6 of MPCT Act, 1994, "the Commissioner can institute proceedings for the purpose of determining the liability of a dealer to pay tax under this Act. Such liability shall be determined by an order and such determination shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date of institution of such proceedings. Under Section 56 of the Act, the Commissioner has power to call for information from any person whom he has reason to believe to have purchased goods from outside Madhya Pradesh to furnish a statement of the name and address of the person from whom he has purchased such goods and the description and price thereof and the manner in which they were delivered. " ( 11. ) SINCE in the present case no formalities were completed which are mandatory requirement of Section 45 (2-A) of the Act, therefore, action taken by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P-1 cannot be allowed to sustain in law. ( 12. ) IN view of this petition is allowed. " ( 11. ) SINCE in the present case no formalities were completed which are mandatory requirement of Section 45 (2-A) of the Act, therefore, action taken by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P-1 cannot be allowed to sustain in law. ( 12. ) IN view of this petition is allowed. Order Annexure- P- 1 dated 22-5-2000 is quashed. Respondents are directed to return the seized articles to the petitioner, within a period of three months. No order as to costs. CC as per rules. Writ Petition allowed.