Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1967 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1967 (11) TMI 106 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues:
- Whether certain documents seized by the Department of Commercial Taxes can be produced in court as evidence despite objections based on confidentiality and privilege.

Analysis:
The petition was filed against the order of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, directing the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to produce specific documents in a case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The objection raised by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was that the documents were privileged under section 57 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondent only pressed for the production of documents related to the seizure of accounts from Messrs Chettiar Films. The Magistrate overruled the objection and allowed the documents to be exhibited, leading to the petition challenging this decision.

The petitioners argued that the documents were confidential due to their connection with sales tax recovery proceedings, citing section 57 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. However, the court clarified that the exemption under section 57(2) applies only to prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code or the Sales Tax Act related to the documents produced in the proceedings. As the current prosecution was under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the exemption did not apply. The court further analyzed that the confidentiality protection under section 57(1) applies to voluntarily produced documents, not those compulsorily seized. Section 41 of the Act distinguishes between production and seizure of documents, with the confidentiality provision only covering produced documents, not seized ones.

Additionally, the petitioners claimed privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act. However, the court ruled that privilege can only be claimed by the public servant concerned, not private parties like the petitioners. Therefore, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Magistrate's decision to allow the seized documents to be exhibited as evidence in the case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates