Strict statutory privilege over sales tax records limits disclosure, with protection extended only to documents expressly covered by the Act.

Section 25(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 creates an express prohibition against disclosure of specified returns, statements and related materials, including production before a court, and section 25(3) lifts that protection only where the documents are required for a prosecution under the Indian Penal Code or the Sales Tax Act in respect of those documents. The provision was construed strictly: returns of non-accused dealers and correspondence files linked to protected assessment material remained privileged, while departmental registers, seized documents not produced in tax proceedings, surrendered blank declaration forms, and assessment orders outside the protected class were not covered. Disclosure was therefore allowed only for the non-privileged documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether documents in the custody of sales tax were protected from disclosure under section 25(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and if so, whether they were nevertheless liable to be produced under section 25(3) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 25(1) creates an express prohibition against disclosure of the documents and statements covered by it, and the prohibition extends to production before a court. Section 25(3) lifts that prohibition only where the documents are required for the purpose of a prosecution under the Indian Penal Code or under the Sales Tax Act in respect of those documents. On that footing, returns of dealers who were not accused in the criminal case remained protected, as did correspondence files to the extent they related to protected assessment material. By contrast, registers and papers maintained by the department, documents seized from dealers and not produced in tax proceedings, surrendered blank declaration forms, and assessment orders not expressly included in the protected class were not entitled to the statutory privilege. The provision was construed strictly, and no implied protection was extended to papers not specifically mentioned in section 25(1).

Conclusion: The documents protected by section 25(1) were not liable to disclosure unless they fell within section 25(3), and the disclosure order was sustained with modification to exclude the protected correspondence files and returns of the non-accused dealers while permitting disclosure of the remaining documents.

---