The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retention of the books of account and documents beyond the prescribed period without communicating the orders of the next higher authorities is illegal and unlawful.

Headnote:
Seizure - Karnataka Sales Tax - Section 28(3) - The court discussed the provisions of section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and its similarity to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Oriental Rubber Works to declare the retention of the books of account and documents beyond 60 days without communicating the orders of the next higher authorities as illegal. The court directed the respondents to return all books of account and documents seized to the respective petitioners.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts, challenged the seizure orders made by the assistant Commercial Tax Officer. They contended that the search and seizure were conducted in a high-handed manner and that the prolonged retention of the books had paralyzed their business.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the retention of the books beyond 60 days without communicating the orders of the next higher authorities was illegal and unlawful. The court directed the respondents to return all books of account and documents seized to the respective petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the retention of the books of account and documents beyond 60 days without communicating the orders of the next higher authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Oriental Rubber Works to declare the retention of the books of account and documents beyond 60 days without communicating the orders of the next higher authorities as illegal.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to return all books of account and documents seized to the respective petitioners.

RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) IN these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the dealers who are registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts have prayed for quashing the orders of seizure made under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and for other reliefs. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2194 to 2196 of 1984 have challenged the orders of seizure made by the respondent, the assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), South Zone, Bangalore on 28th October, 1983 under section 28 (3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The petitioner in W. P. No. 18923 of 1984 is a partnership firm carrying on business in the sale of submersible pumps. On 9th August, 1984 the business premises of the firm situate in Silver Jubilee Park Road, Bangalore, was inspected by the 1st respondent and a search was carried out in the premises and certain books of account, documents, etc. , were seized by the 1st respondent as per seizure order annexure G. The petitioner has challenged the said seizure on several grounds and has prayed for issue of a certiorari quashing the said seizure order dated 9th August, 1984 and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of prohibition against the respondents not to make use of the information obtained from the seized documents in the above proceedings by the k. S. T. and C. S. T. Acts. They have also prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to return all the books of account, documents and papers, etc. , so seized from their respective business premises.

( 2 ) FACTS relating to the institution of first batch of writ petitions are these : the business premises of the petitioners located at No. 237, Rajamahal Vilas Extension, bangalore, was searched on 28th October, 1983 and the respondent seized the books of account, documents, correspondence. receipts, vouchers, cheques and other negotiable instruments, etc. , as per the seizure orders annexures D and E. It is the petitioners' contention that the said search and seizure was conducted in a high-handed and arbitrary manner and innumerable documents and other papers which had no relevance or necessary for the purposes of proceedings under the act, were indiscriminately seized. It is also alleged that the respondent collected by force and threat, two cheques of the value of Rs. 50,000 each from the first petitioner at the time of raid.

( 3 ) IT is the petitioners' case that all the books of account, etc. , are retained by the respondent since 28th October, 1983 and on account of this prolonged retention of the books, their day-to-day business has come to a stand-still and the entire business has been

paralysed. It is also alleged that they are facing threat of prosecution from the Department of Company Affairs for not filing the statutory returns under the Companies Act in time. In these circumstances, the petitioners requested the respondent by their letter dated 23rd December, 1983 to return all the books seized and in particular certain hundies and other important daily accounts to make payments to their suppliers and to collect the dues from their customers and to answer certain queries in connection with their business and to attend all other urged matters.

( 4 ) HAVING failed in their attempt to get back the necessary papers and documents, the petitioners have approached this Court under article 226 of the Constitution for the necessary reliefs.

( 5 ) THE only point urged by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the retention of the books beyond 60 days as prescribed by section 28 (3) of the Act is illegal and unlawful and have prayed for a direction to the respondent to return all the books of account, etc. , seized. We have heard the parties on this point first. Learned counsel for the parties urged for deciding this point first and then decide the other points, if it becomes necessary.

( 6 ) IN support of their contention, the petitioners have placed strong reliance on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis