1976 (2) TMI 171 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Illegal seizure of documents and their return to the petitioner.
2. Permissibility of using photostat copies of illegally seized documents by the revenue department for assessment purposes.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the illegal seizure of documents from the petitioner's premises, which were unrelated to the company mentioned in the search warrant. The court ordered the return of the original documents to the petitioner, which was complied with. The petitioner objected to the revenue department using photostat copies of the documents for assessment, citing illegal seizure and violation of procedural requirements.

2. The court clarified that the controversy was not about the legality of the seizure but focused on whether photostat copies of illegally seized documents could be used by the revenue department for assessment purposes. Previous cases established that the admissibility of documents in assessment does not depend on their source but on their relevance and admissibility. The court cited precedents like Annamalai Chettiar & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Kuruma v. Queen to support the permissibility of using illegally seized documents in assessments.

3. The petitioner argued against the revenue department using the photostat copies before a court order was obtained. However, the court held that the legality of using such documents was governed by the Evidence Act and the authority's power to summon documents. Referring to Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, the court emphasized that even if documents were illegally seized, they could still be used in assessments, as long as they were relevant.

4. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the revenue department should be prohibited from using information from the seized documents. Citing Balwant Singh v. Director of Inspection, the court upheld the constitutionality of using evidence obtained from an illegal search. The court emphasized that there was no legal prohibition on using such evidence in revenue assessments.

5. The court distinguished previous cases like Wazir Chand v. State of H.P. and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver, stating they did not address the specific issue of using illegally seized documents in revenue assessments. The court directed the revenue department to use the photostat copies of the documents retained in court for assessment purposes and return them within twelve weeks.

6. In conclusion, the court allowed the revenue department to use the photostat copies of the illegally seized documents for assessment, emphasizing that the admissibility of evidence in assessments was not restricted by the manner of acquisition. The judgment clarified the permissibility of using such documents in revenue proceedings, highlighting the relevance and admissibility of the evidence over the method of seizure.