Search and seizure under sales tax law may reach undisclosed business premises; criminal procedure safeguards for police investigations need not apply.

Power under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act extended beyond declared registration premises to any place that in fact functioned as the dealer's place of business, including a secret gaddi used to keep account books, so search and seizure there were valid. Procedural safeguards under section 165(4) read with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply because the officer acted under special delegated powers of inspection, search and seizure under the sales tax law, not as a police investigator of a cognizable offence. The offences were treated as technical, and imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power of inspection, seizure and search under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was confined to a place of business declared by the dealer in the registration documents. (ii) Whether the inspection, search and seizure were vitiated by non-compliance with section 165(4) read with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (iii) Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the power of inspection, seizure and search under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was confined to a place of business declared by the dealer in the registration documents.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required disclosure of places of business in registration forms and certificates, but the Act and Rules did not say that only declared premises could be treated as a place of business. The definition of place of business extended to any place where the dealer sold goods or kept accounts of sales. Since the secret gaddi was used for keeping account books, it was a place of business within the meaning of the Rules. The powers under section 17, as delegated under section 18, could therefore be exercised there, and non-disclosure did not confer immunity from search or seizure.

Conclusion: The power under section 17 was not confined to declared premises, and the search and seizure were lawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the inspection, search and seizure were vitiated by non-compliance with section 165(4) read with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The officer acted under the delegated powers of inspection, search and seizure conferred by section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 and not as an officer investigating a cognizable offence under section 27 of that Act. As the action was taken in exercise of the special statutory powers under the sales tax law, the procedural safeguards applicable to a police investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were not attracted.

Conclusion: The impugned action was not invalidated by section 165(4) read with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants required reduction.

Analysis: The offences were treated as technical, no hurt was caused to the raiding party, and the appellants had already undergone about a month of imprisonment. In these circumstances, the ends of justice were met by limiting imprisonment to the periods already undergone.

Conclusion: The sentences were reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were maintained, but the enhanced custodial punishment was reduced, resulting in only partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of search and seizure under a special revenue statute extends to any premises that in fact constitute the dealer's place of business, and criminal procedure safeguards governing police investigation do not apply where the officer acts only under delegated statutory powers of inspection and seizure.

---