9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings before a criminal court, shall, save as provided in sub-section (3), be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no court shall, save as aforesaid, be entitled to require any officer of the State Government to produce before it any such statement, return, account, document or record or any part thereof or to give evidence before it in respect thereof." The learned trial court has observed in its order under revision that the statements in dispute, which were sought to be produced by the departmental representative, were made under the Act and are, therefore, privileged from proof and production. Reliance has been placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the judgment of this court in Firm Tara Chand Hari Ram v. Suraj Bhan[1969] 24 S.T.C. 251; 71 P.L.R. 329., wherein it has been observed that the only exception to the rule contained in section 26 is when such a statement is sought to be used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r documents produced voluntarily by any assessee and being record of proceedings relating to taking of forcible possession of the books of account under section 14(1) of the Act, they are not covered by the privilege referred to in section 26. For that proposition, he has relied upon the judgment of S.S. Sandhawalia, J., dated 26th October, 1976, in Civil Revision No. 1388 of 1974, Dalip Singh v. Dilbagh Rai[1977] 39 S.T.C. 263., wherein the learned Judge has, following the judgment of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami Chettiar v. K.J. Mahadevan[1969] 23 S.T.C. 255., held that the privilege in question cannot be extended to the documents seized in a raid and it can apply only to the documents produced voluntarily. Production of documents, which had been seized and not produced voluntarily, was held to be not privileged by the Madras High Court. After laying down the law to the above effect, the learned Judge has observed as below: "Learned counsel for the respondents, however, have pointed out that the trial court has not clearly found whether the privilege was claimed expressly in regard to the record which had been only seized by the department. This is indeed so and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t part. A mere glance at the statement of Gurdial dated 15th September, 1971, shows that the said statement cannot possibly be said to have been made by him voluntarily. In effect it is a mere acknowledgement of the receipt for the books of account, etc., which were seized in the raid on 15th September, 1971. If the documents seized in the raid were still in the possession of the sales tax authorities and their production was sought in a civil proceeding, the department could not have claimed privilege in respect thereof, because those documents had not been produced before the authorities, but had been seized by them. The statement of Gurdial dated 15th September, 1971, is a part of the seizure proceedings as the said statement merely amounts to an acknowledgement of the receipt, which the department was bound to give to the firm at the time of the seizure under sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act. I, therefore, hold that the said document is neither confidential nor contains a Here italicised. statement covered by section 26 of the Act and the decision of the trial court about the production of the same being privileged is not correct. Before dealing with the second docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against that party itself. The whole object of the section appears to be that statements made or documents produced in confidence by an assessee or other concerned person during the proceedings under the Act should remain confidential from others; and their contents should not be divulged to third parties. The first part of section 26, therefore, impliedly prohibits the department from giving even certified copies of the documents produced by the assessee to a third person, as doing so would amount to not treating the documents as confidential. The documents were seized from the firm and the statements sought to be produced were made on behalf of the firm. The certified copy also appears to have been given to the erstwhile partners of the firm. The production of the documents of the firm at the instance of one of the partners in a litigation between two or more partners of the firm itself does not appear to be covered by section 26 of the Act, as the contents thereof are known to the parties and cannot be said to be confidential from them. Anything, which is not to be treated as confidential from a particular person, cannot be covered by the privilege in respect of its production a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
