Statutory inspection powers do not allow continuous surveillance of business premises; reasonable-time inspection must remain limited.

Section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 allowed inspection of accounts, registers, documents, goods and business premises at reasonable times, but not continuous surveillance. The Court distinguished inspection from watch, holding that inspection means careful scrutiny for a reasonable period, while watch implies constant observation. "At all reasonable times" was construed to permit visits at reasonable intervals suited to the nature and hours of the business, not uninterrupted monitoring throughout the business day. Continuous presence of inspectors for long hours over several days was beyond the statutory power and amounted to harassment. The petitioners were therefore entitled to relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 authorised the Sales Tax authorities to keep a continuous watch and exercise supervision over the petitioners' hotels throughout the business day.

Analysis: The provision permitted inspection of accounts, registers, documents, goods, and business premises at all reasonable times. The Court distinguished between "inspection" and "watch", holding that inspection denotes careful scrutiny for a reasonable period, whereas watch implies constant observation and surveillance. The expression "at all reasonable times" was held to contemplate visits at reasonable intervals suited to the nature and hours of the business, not uninterrupted monitoring from opening to closing time. The continuous presence of inspectors for long hours over several days was therefore beyond the statutory power and amounted to harassment rather than lawful inspection.

Conclusion: Section 28(2) did not authorise continuous watch or supervision over the hotels; the petitioners were entitled to relief.

---