RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

Thiru L. V. Veeri Chettiar and his minor son V. Shanmugham, the petitioners herein, formed themselves into an association of persons in the year 1961 for carrying on the business of manufacture of handloom and powerloom cloths. They adopted the trading style of "Messrs Shanmugham Textiles" and their factory was set up in Vambadithalam, Salem District. The petitioners later concerned themselves in the manufacture of ready-made garments, and were exporting such garments, art silk fabrics and pure silk zari embroidered sarees, all of which came under the category of handloom cloth and handicrafts within the meaning of the export promotion scheme for handicrafts and handloom cloths initiated by the Government of India. Under the said scheme certain import licences were issued to the petitioners as against the export of handloom cloths and handicrafts. It is not necessary to set out the details of the export promotion scheme, as they are not necessary. The petitioners concede that the import licences so obtained by them were being sold by them by way of forward sale though named brokers in Madras. Such blank transfers enabled the brokers to negotiate further the licences and sell the same. The petitioners would state that once they effected a sale of the licences through the brokers, they were not aware as to who finally imported the goods under cover of the licences and under the letters of authority which they signed in blank contemporaneously along with the sale of the licences. The petitioners' case is that they maintain no accounts in respect of such sale of licences and, according to them, no goods imported under the said licences were sold by them in the Maharashtra State. On 5th October, 1964, the Sales Tax Officer (XI), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay, who is the respondent in this case, sent a registered letter stating that the petitioners have made large imports at Bombay and called upon them to furnish to him the details of such imports and the disposal thereof. He characterised the petitioners as non-resident dealers and enclosed various forms to be filled up by the petitioners for the respondent to deal with them in accordance with the sales tax law in force in Bombay. One such form which was enclosed with the letter dated 5th October, 1964, was a form which related to a certificate to be issued by a Chartered Accountant relating to the maintenance of the books of account by the petitioners and the statement of sales of imported goods etc. The petitioners replied in their letter dated 9th March, 1965, stating that there were no imports of art silk as claimed during the period 1st January, 1960, to 31st March, 1964. In this view they sent back the statement marked "nil". The petitioners claim that the association of persons was dissolved on 9th June, 1965. In spite of the disowning of any transaction in the nature of import or sale by the petitioners, the respondent was pursuing the petitioners to furnish before him their books of accounts. In their letter dated 4th August, 1966, the petitioners made it clear that there was no clearance of goods at Bombay Port and there was no sale of any commodity by the petitioners who were by then dissolved on 9th June, 1965. They denied liability and stated that the association of persons is under no legal obligation to produce the accounts and documents called for. They reiterated that the licences were sold in accordance with the common practice of the trade through named brokers, and blank papers in the nature of letters of authority were given at or about the time of such sale. The petitioners claim that there was no occasion or necessity for them to keep accounts as there was no actual import of goods subsequent to 1st April, 1964. They categorically stated as follows :-

"As soon as transactions are concluded with the brokers, blank papers would be signed to enable them taking necessary steps to effect the imports in the name of the firm, by t