The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of an officer to impose penalties under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is limited to specific local limits and cannot extend throughout the state.

T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - I shall state the facts in O.P. No. 5084 of 1989, as that is the case which arises seriously for consideration.

O.P. No. 5084 of 1989 :

Petitioner P. Sivaramakrishnan is a partner of "Saraswathy Jewellery", a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act", for brevity), for carrying on a jewellery business in Main Road, Kollam.

2. On September 24, 1987, the Intelligence Wing of the Sales Tax Department conducted a search of the business premises of the firm, as also in building No. X/175, stated to be the residence of the petitioner. The search was simultaneous and was conducted at the business premises by the Intelligence Officer, Alapuzha, and at the residence by the Intelligence Officer, Kottayam, whom I shall hereinafter refer as the Alapuzha and Kottayam officers respectively for purposes of convenience. Three pocket diaries marked for identification as A, B and C and 733 slips were seized from building No. X/175, as stated in the Shop Inspection Report. Exhibit P1(b) prepared by the Kottayam officer, of which a copy was served on spot on the petitioner's son S. Gopalakrishnan, a partner of the firm who was present at the time of the search. The Kottayam Officer thereafter called upon the dealer to produce its books of accounts for the year 1987-88 along with the other details called for by his notice exhibit P3 dated October 7, 1987, on October 17, 1987. Two of the partner Saravanan and Gopalakrishnan appeared with the accounts on the date notified in response to this notice. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was then found necessary to verify the accounts for 1985-86 and 1986-87 as well, as some of the seized slips related to those years. The books for those years were accordingly produced and verified on 22nd, 27th and 28th October, 1987 and December 29, 1987, in the presence of the partners. The Kottayam officer, thereafter issued the notice exhibit P3 on January 21, 1988 alleging irregularities in the accounts as also stock variation at the time of inspection, and calling upon the dealer to show cause why penalty in the sums mentioned may not be imposed on it for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, under section 45A of the Act for failure to maintain true and complete accounts, with a view to evade payment of tax due to the State.

3. The petitioner replied by exhibit P4, denying, inter alia, the seizure of records from his residence, as also the charge of non-maintenance of true and complete accounts. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Kottayam officer to levy penalty when the search of the business premises was by the Alapuzha Officer. In addition, he also requested for being furnished with photostat copies of the seized records to enable him to give a detailed and effective reply.

4. The Kottayam Officer was not taken in by this reply, and he sent a detailed letter exhibit P5 dated February 20, 1988, refuting the various contentions raised by the petitioner, but not the question of jurisdiction which was left unanswered. I am not entering into the details of his letter except to state that he permitted the petitioner to take extracts of the seized records from his office during office hours, as it was stated to be a practical impossibility to furnish photostat copies of the three diaries and the 733 slips.

5. The petitioner in his turn replied by his letter exhibit P6 dated March 7, 1988, in which he requested for a decision on the question of jurisdiction raised by him before proceeding further with the matter. The Kottayam Officer's reply was exhibit P7, dated April 21, 1988, in which he brushed aside the objection to jurisdiction as "insignificant, irrelevant and unwarranted", since the officer who inspected the business place/residence had initiated the penal proceedings. Besides, he mentioned that the petitioner had failed to establish that the Kottayam Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter.