Mandatory record-return safeguards must be applied purposively, allowing practical hard-disk copying and verification without diluting statutory protection.

Section 14 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was treated as an imperative safeguard for returning seized books and documents, but it had to be applied purposively to accommodate seizure of a hard disk. The Court held that updating construction permits a practical procedure: authorities may copy the data, verify it with the dealer's cooperation, and take the dealer's receipt in the manner contemplated by the proviso, without weakening the statutory object. Personal costs were not justified on the officers responsible for withholding the material, and that direction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 14 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was mandatory so as to require return of seized books and documents within the stipulated period, and how that provision was to operate in relation to seizure of a hard disk; (ii) Whether personal costs could be imposed on the officers responsible for withholding the seized material.

Issue (i): Whether section 14 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was mandatory so as to require return of seized books and documents within the stipulated period, and how that provision was to operate in relation to seizure of a hard disk.

Analysis: The provision was treated as one intended to protect the dealer's records while permitting examination and copying by the revenue authorities. At the same time, the Court held that statutory construction must take account of changing technological conditions and that procedural laws operate as ongoing statutes. Applying updating construction, the Court held that literal compliance with the provision, when the seizure involved a hard disk, could require recourse to a scientific and practical method of copying and verification. The authorities were therefore permitted to obtain copies, verify them with the dealer's cooperation, and take the dealer's receipt in the manner contemplated by the proviso.

Conclusion: The provision remained imperative in character, but its application to a hard disk could be carried out by a practical procedure consistent with the statutory purpose.

Issue (ii): Whether personal costs could be imposed on the officers responsible for withholding the seized material.

Analysis: The Court found no justification for fastening personal liability for costs on the officers in the circumstances of the case and set aside that part of the High Court's order.

Conclusion: The direction imposing personal costs on the officers was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the limited extent of deleting the personal-costs direction, while the statutory obligation to return seized material was affirmed subject to a practical method for handling hard-disk seizure situations.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural statute must be construed as an ongoing enactment and applied purposively so that its object is fulfilled even in the face of technological developments, without diluting the mandatory force of the statutory safeguard.

---