The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for searches and seizures to be conducted strictly in accordance with the law, and the entitlement of individuals to the return of seized property if the search is deemed illegal.

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions of law and will be dealt with together. We shall give the facts in W. P. No. 3088 of 1970 in order to understand the questions that fall to be decided.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). His case was that on 27th December, 1969, the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Intelligence branch, who is the second respondent, along with his staff raided the business premises of the petitioner and took possession of some books of accounts and other documents by taking a signed statement from one of the partners of the petitioner-firm wherein it was made to appear that those books of accounts and other documents were voluntarily handed over to the second respondent for the purpose of verification and return. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 20th March, 1970, as per annexure B, from the second respondent, which is in these terms :-

SHOW cause NOTICE :

You are aware that your business premises was inspected by the undersigned on 27-12-1969 and a few katcha books and loose slips of paper were secured for cross verification and these books were verified in your presence on 5-1-1970 and again on 25-1-1970, and, on ? examination of the books it was revealed that the following items as per the exhibits are not traceable in your books.

The details are furnished below separately. Further, you had stock of gold articles, ribbons, one wrist watch, scooter bearing and you have not produced invoices for all these items and yet you argue that they were purchased for use.

In the absence of documentary evidence it is now proposed to treat the entire turnover of Rs. 55,837. 28 by way of sales and a sum of Rs. 5,374. 40 by way of purchases for the year 1969-70 as clear suppression of turnover. Before taking prosecution proceedings in a court of law, I give you an opportunity for signifying your willingness for departmental composition should you so desire within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which action as per law

will be taken against you.

Sd . / -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(A. M. Abdul Basheer ),

Commercial Tax Officer-II

(Intelligence ). "

( 3 ) THE petitioner in its reply letter dated 14th April, 1970, contended that the seizure of books and other documents on 27th December, 1969, was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and demanded the return of the same by dropping the proceedings against it. It also sent a reminder dated 1st July, 1970, repeating its above requests. When all its attempts failed, these writ petitions were preferred on 30th July, 1970, praying for the issue of a mandamus to the second respondent to produce the books of accounts and documents illegally seized from it and all notes made therefrom to this court and the petitioner also prays that they may be handed over to it. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings before the second respondent, culminating in the issue of the show cause notice dated 20th March, 1970. Besides, there is also a prayer for an injunction restraining the second respondent from disclosing the information gathered from the books of accounts and other documents seized and from making use thereof.

( 4 ) WE may now turn to the case made out by the second respondent. In his counter-affidavit he states that the petitioner voluntarily made available all the books and documents for him, when he visited the premises on 27th December, 1969, for inspection, with on intention to search and seize the documents. He further states that his said visit was in the exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 28 of the Act. He also justifies the proceedings taken by him against the petitioner.

( 5 ) SINCE the second respondent sought to support his action under section 28 of the Act, it would be useful to extract below the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document