9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner of the documents seized. The petitioner's allegation is that at that time there was no person present at the shop except a Chaukidar and that in the absence of the petitioner the Sales Tax Officer seized all these documents including Rs. 50. The petition is contested by the respondents. The version of the search made on 5th July, 1958, is given in these words: "On 5th July, 1958, a complaint was received on phone by the Sales Tax Authorities that the petitioner was not transacting genuine business and was engaged in activities leading to evasion of sales tax. On this, two Inspectors of the Special Investigation Branch were directed to pay a surprise visit to the petitioner's shop immediately and inspect his account books under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo more Inspectors to the petitioner's shop to persuade him to allow inspection. The said relative of the petitioner did not allow to carry out the inspection and pushed me out of the shop. I was thus left with no alternative except to seek the protection of the police. Since the petitioner deliberately ran away to avoid inspection, I in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 14 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Union Territory of Delhi and under the orders of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, obtained on phone broke the locks of the almirah and wooden boxes and carried out the search and thereafter seized the account books and documents for reasons given in the seizure memo left at the dealer's shop which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in my opinion that is sufficient ground to enable the authorities to take steps under section 14(3) of the Act. The learned counsel then pointed out to me that the documents were seized on 5th July, 1958, and have not been returned by the authorities. This is however in accordance with law. Rule 58 lays down that documents can be retained for more than 21 days only if the Commissioner sanctions such a retention. In the present case the learned counsel for the respondent has shown me this sanction which is dated 30th July, 1958. It was suggested that 21 days expired on 26th July, 1958, and the sanction was granted on the 30th July, 1958, and therefore retention for four days was illegal. That may or may not be so but that is no ground for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
