1968 (4) TMI 65 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the power under section 17 can be exercised in relation to any dealer whether registered or unregistered? Held that - Appeal partly allowed. Only the power of the Commissioner under section 17 was delegated to Sharma. In making the inspection, search and seizure he was exercising the powers under section 17. He was not investigating or dealing with an offence. The provisions of section 165(4) read with section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code were therefore not attracted and he was not required to comply with those provisions. The ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentences imposed by the High Court to the periods of imprisonments already undergone by the appellants. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The convictions of the appellants by the courts below including their convictions by the High Court under section 305 are affirmed. The sentences under section 305 and the enhanced sentences in respect of other offences imposed on the appellants by the High Court are reduced to the periods of imprisonments already undergone by them. The sentences imposed on the appellants by the Third Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna, are maintained.

Summary

Issues:
- Legality of inspection, search, and seizure under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act
- Exercise of powers by the Commissioner and delegation to an officer
- Definition of "place of business" under the Act and Rules
- Compliance with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code during search and seizure
- Mitigation of sentences imposed by the High Court

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court involved the appeal of six individuals convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The case originated from a raid conducted by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes at a dealer's place of business, where discrepancies in account books were discovered. The convicted individuals were found to have obstructed the raiding party and snatched the seized items. The primary legal issue raised was the legality of the inspection, search, and seizure conducted under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.

The defense argued that the raid was illegal as the location was not a declared place of business. However, the Court held that the definition of "place of business" encompassed any location where sales accounts were maintained, regardless of declaration. The power to inspect, seize, and search was not limited to declared places and could be exercised at any business location. Furthermore, the delegation of powers to the Superintendent validated the actions taken during the raid.

Another contention was the compliance with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code during the search and seizure. The Court clarified that the Superintendent was not investigating a cognizable offense but acting under the delegated powers of inspection and seizure. Hence, the requirements of section 165(4) and section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to the situation.

Regarding the mitigation of sentences, the Court acknowledged that the offense of dacoity was technical, and no physical harm was caused during the incident. Considering the time already served by the appellants, the Court decided to reduce the sentences imposed by the High Court to the periods of imprisonment already undergone. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were modified to align with the time served.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, affirming the convictions but reducing the sentences to the periods of imprisonment already completed by the appellants. The legality of the inspection and seizure under section 17 was upheld, emphasizing the broad interpretation of "place of business" under the Act and Rules. Compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code was deemed unnecessary due to the nature of the Superintendent's actions.