Valid delegation and recorded reasons justified seizure and retention of sales tax records; brief sanction delay did not warrant writ interference.

Delegated seizure powers under the sales tax law were upheld where the notification validly authorised the Sales Tax Officer under section 15, and the record showed written reasons and a seizure memo setting out the grounds and particulars of the documents seized. Information suggesting sales tax evasion was sufficient to justify action under section 14(3). Retention beyond 21 days was also not interfered with because the Commissioner's sanction had been obtained under Rule 58, and any short delay in sanction was not treated as a writ-ground for interference at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search, seizure, and continued retention of the dealer's books and documents were legally valid under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The challenge was to the power exercised by the Sales Tax Officer. The seizure power under section 14(3) had been delegated by notification, and such delegation was valid under section 15. The record also showed written reasons and a seizure memo containing the grounds and particulars of the documents seized. The existence of information suggesting evasion of sales tax was sufficient to justify action under section 14(3). As regards retention beyond 21 days, the Commissioner's sanction had been obtained under Rule 58, and any possible short delay in sanction was not treated as a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Conclusion: The seizure and retention were not held to be illegal, and the petition was dismissed.

---