Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 1969 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1969 (9) TMI 90 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether a Sales Tax Inspector inspecting the accounts under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (2 of 1959) is entitled to remove obstruction to the inspection of account books? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The Sales Tax Inspector was acting in execution of his duty as a Sales Tax Inspector and the appellant used criminal force against the Sales Tax Inspector. Further he intended to deter the Sales Tax Inspector and prevent him from discharging his duty as a public servant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Sales Tax Inspector is entitled to remove obstruction to the inspection of account books under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 2. Whether the actions of the Sales Tax Inspector in attempting to take possession of the account books amounted to "seizure" under Section 29(3) of the Act. 3. Whether the appellant's actions constituted an offense under Sections 353 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Whether the appellant was entitled to exercise the right of private defense. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of Sales Tax Inspector to Remove Obstruction: The principal question was whether a Sales Tax Inspector inspecting accounts under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, is entitled to remove obstruction to the inspection of account books. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29, which deals with the production and inspection of accounts and documents, and the search of premises. The court noted that Section 29(2) allows the Commissioner to inspect accounts at all reasonable times, while Section 29(4) permits the Commissioner to enter and search any place of business for inspection purposes. The court concluded that the Sales Tax Inspector, having seen the two books in the hands of the assessee, was entitled to demand that they be shown to him and, if necessary, forcibly take possession of them for inspection. This action did not amount to "seizure" under Section 29(3), as the objective was not to dispossess the trader but to hold the books temporarily for inspection. 2. Actions of the Sales Tax Inspector and "Seizure": The court addressed whether the Inspector's attempt to take possession of the account books from the appellant's son amounted to "seizure" under Section 29(3) of the Act. The court referred to the interpretation of similar provisions in other cases, such as Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver, to emphasize that the power of search is implicit in the power of inspection. The court held that the Inspector's actions were within his statutory authority and did not constitute seizure, as the books were not taken outside the possession of the assessee but were held temporarily for inspection. 3. Appellant's Actions and Offenses under IPC: The appellant was convicted under Sections 353 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate. The Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the appellant, holding that the Inspector was not authorized to seize the books and, therefore, was not acting in the discharge of his public duty. The High Court reversed this decision, concluding that the Inspector was within his authority to demand inspection and prevent the removal of the books. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the appellant's use of criminal force against the Inspector and his intention to deter the Inspector from discharging his duty constituted offenses under Sections 353 and 506(1) of the IPC. 4. Right of Private Defense: The appellant contended that he was entitled to exercise the right of private defense of his son's person. The court rejected this argument, noting that the son was committing an offense under Section 46(h) of the Act by attempting to remove the account books. Consequently, no question of private defense arose in this context. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Sales Tax Inspector was acting within his statutory authority and that the appellant's actions constituted offenses under Sections 353 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that the powers of inspection and search under the Act are essential for the enforcement of tax laws and the protection of social security.
|