1973 (2) TMI 120 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether certain documents produced by the sales tax department can be marked as evidence in court proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the defendant in this case, challenged the order of the lower court directing the reception of certain documents produced by the sales tax department as evidence. The defendant argued that these documents are privileged under section 57 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and should not be marked as evidence. Section 57(1) of the Act mandates that all particulars contained in statements, returns, accounts, records, or documents produced under the Act shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed. The defendant contended that this prohibition applies to the officer producing the documents and also restricts the court from directing the production of such documents. The court held that the prohibition against disclosure extends to both the officer and the court, and documents covered under section 57(1) should be treated as confidential. The court cannot direct the officer to produce documents prohibited under section 57(1) unless it relates to a civil suit involving the Government.

The court rejected the argument that there is no restriction on the court to summon and admit documents prohibited under section 57(1). A previous decision cited by the defendant was distinguished, emphasizing that the statutory prohibition against disclosure by the officer applies. The court clarified that neither the officer nor the court can disclose or summon documents covered under section 57 of the Act. In the present case, items 1 to 5 were deemed admissible as they did not fall under section 57(1), while item 6, containing assessment files, could potentially include prohibited documents and hence cannot be admitted. The court stated that if the respondent wishes to summon specific documents, the court will assess whether they are prohibited under section 57(1) before deciding on admissibility.

Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, permitting the admission of items 1 to 5 but disallowing item 6 from being marked as evidence. The court made no order as to costs in this matter.