Statutory power to summon accounts must be exercised by a competent authority for an authorised purpose; conviction under section 174 could not stand.

A dealer's accounts could be compelled only by a competent authority acting within the statutory purpose and limits of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The commentary notes that the Commercial Tax Officer, Administration, had no statutory power to summon accounts for a departmental enquiry, exemption scrutiny, or delegated revisional exercise, because those functions were reserved to specified assessing, appellate, or revising authorities and subject to prescribed time limits. Non-compliance with a summons for production of accounts, if punishable at all, would not sustain a conviction under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code; the revisional court treated the conviction as unsustainable and set it aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Commercial Tax Officer, Administration, had authority under the Madras General Sales Tax Act to summon a dealer's accounts for a departmental enquiry or revisional examination, and whether non-compliance could sustain a conviction under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The summons was issued only for production of account books, and the offence, if any, would fall under section 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 rather than section 174. The officer issuing the summons was not the original assessing authority, appellate authority, or revising authority. The statutory provisions relied on permitted calling for accounts only for purposes of the Act, and the power of rectification or revision was confined to specified authorities acting within prescribed time limits. There was no provision enabling the Commercial Tax Officer, Administration, to summon accounts for a departmental enquiry, to inspect exemption claims for the purpose of reporting to the Deputy Commissioner, or to exercise delegated revisional power. On the evidence, the petitioner was not shown to be legally bound to produce the accounts for the purpose stated in the summons.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court held that the summons lacked statutory support for the purpose for which it was issued, and the resulting conviction could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer can be compelled to produce accounts only when the demand is made by a competent authority acting within the limits of the statute and for a purpose authorised by that statute.

---