Authorised tax inspection powers upheld where special officers could inspect accounts and obstruction led to liability.

A special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was treated as an authorised officer entitled to inspect dealers' accounts under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the governing notification. The omission to name special officers expressly in one clause was regarded as a defect in form, not substance, and later amendment confirmed that construction. Inspection during lunch hour was held to be at a reasonable time, so resistance to the officer attracted liability under the sales tax and penal provisions. The convictions were sustained, but the sentence was mitigated in view of immediate contrition and apology, with the fines reduced by half.

---

---

Issues: Whether a special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was authorised to inspect accounts under section 14(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 and the relevant notification, and whether resistance to such inspection attracted liability under section 15(c) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 and section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Section 14(2) required dealers to keep their accounts and registers open to inspection at all reasonable times by authorised officers. The notification in force authorised all officers of the Commercial Tax Department of the relevant rank to inspect accounts. A special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was held to be only an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer deputed for special duties and did not cease to hold that office for the purpose of the notification. The omission to mention special officers expressly in one clause was treated as a defect in form and not in substance, especially as the later amendment clarified the position. The inspection was also held to have taken place at a reasonable time, namely during lunch hour, and the argument based on the phrase "at all reasonable times" was rejected. Since the officer was duly authorised, obstruction to him in the course of inspection constituted the offences charged. The convictions were therefore sustained. Considering the immediate contrition and apology, the fines were reduced.

Conclusion: The challenge to the authority of the special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer failed, the convictions were upheld, and only the sentence was reduced by halving the fines.

---