9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 4794 of 1972, the residence bearing door No. 24, Nannian Street, Park Town, Madras-3, was searched and certain documents were seized. The application made by one Thiru Daniel, Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Wing, Board of Revenue, Madras, for the issue of warrant stated: "I have received information that Thiru Andhra Steel Corporation, No. 304, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1, has kept his secret account books, etc., in his residence at No. 24, Nannian Street, Park Town, Madras-3, relating to his business and as they are required in connection with an enquiry against him under the General Sales Tax Act, 1959, may be issued with a warrant to search and to recover the books from the place mentioned under section 98, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er directions of this court. We accordingly direct that the original order dated 15th February, 1973, should be complied with except that certified copies of the originals relating to M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd., will be kept in the custody of court in a sealed bundle or cover awaiting further directions from this court." The present application is for a direction to enable the revenue to make use of the copies and then return them to Purushothamlal Rungta. Mr. Venugopal, who appears for Purushothamlal Rungta, objects to any such directions being given on three grounds: Firstly, the company has no residence in Madras as comprehended by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the branch office of the company at Madras can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment on that ground will not be rendered illegal or void, because admissibility of such documents does not depend upon the source or the manner in which they are obtained, but on the relevancy and their admissibility. One of the earliest cases holding that view is Annamalai Chettiar Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer[1965] 16 S.T.C. 687., decided by one of us. The view was rested on the ratio of Kuruma v. Queen[1955] A.C. 197. But Mr. Venugopal's contention is that if, before the revenue makes use of the copies in making the assessment, his client is vigilant enough to come to this court and ask for forbidding of such user, the revenue cannot resist issuing such direction. In our opinion, in principle, no distinction, if the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents in the process of making an assessment order. That principle is inherent in Kuruma v. Queen[1955] A.C. 197. and also R.S. Jhaver v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1965] 16 S.T.C. 708. , and all the subsequent cases which followed that principle. In fact, it seems to us that the question is concluded by Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection[1974] 93 I.T.R. 505 (S.C.). That was a case of an illegal seizure in connection with income-tax proceedings. Among others, one of the questions that was decided has a direct bearing to the instant case before us. The Supreme Court, dealing with that question, held in that case: "However, there was another relief claimed in the petitions and that was for a writ of prohibition restraining the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution which forbids the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search. Consistently with that view the relief for a writ of prohibition was rejected and hence the two civil appeals before us." Then the Court went on to further deal with this matter and then observed: "It, therefore, follows, that neither by invoking the spirit of our Constitution nor by a strained construction of any of the fundamental rights can we spell out the exclusion of evidence obtained on an illegal search." The Court expressed its conclusion on this matter: "In that view, even assuming, as was done by the High Court, that the search and seizure were in contravention of the provisions of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, still the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Mysore High Court, expressed a contrary view. But in taking that view, R.S. Jhaver v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1965] 16 S.T.C. 708. and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver(2) appear to have been relied on. So far as Jhaver's case(4) was concerned, the present question was not decided. The prayer in that case was for a simple direction to return the documents illegally seized. The court was not called upon to decide whether, before returning those documents, the court can permit the user of such documents in revenue proceedings. We, accordingly, direct that the revenue will make use of the photostat copies or other copies which are in the sealed cover in this court, which the Registrar will make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
