Search and seizure of sales tax records upheld where statutory safeguards and limited retention made the power non-arbitrary.

Section 13(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid search-and-seizure provision because dealers' accounts and documents were treated as quasi-public materials subject to statutory inspection, confidentiality and retention limits. The court held that the officer's power was controlled by objective preconditions, including prescribed rank, reasonable grounds to believe tax evasion, and searches confined to specified places, so the absence of prior appeal, recorded reasons, or CrPC-style safeguards did not make the provision arbitrary. It further accepted the distinction between inspection and seizure as a practical necessity for dealing with voluminous records. The provision was therefore not inconsistent with Articles 14, 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 13(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act violates articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution by authorising search and seizure of dealers' accounts, registers and documents. (ii) Whether the seized material could be used in making an assessment if section 13(3) were invalid.

Issue: Whether section 13(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act violates articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution by authorising search and seizure of dealers' accounts, registers and documents.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required dealers to maintain true and correct accounts, permitted inspection of those accounts by authorised officers, treated concealment or falsification as offences, and imposed confidentiality on business papers. On that basis, the accounts and documents were treated as having a quasi-public character and as being impressed with a trust, rather than being purely private property. The power under section 13(3) was also confined by objective preconditions: the authorised officer had to be of the prescribed rank, had to have reasonable grounds for believing that a dealer was trying to evade liability for tax, could search only specified places, and could retain the documents only for a limited period. The absence of a prior appeal, a recorded reason, or CrPC-style safeguards did not make the provision arbitrary because the legality of the search and seizure remained subject to judicial control. The distinction between inspection under section 13(2) and seizure under section 13(3) was held to rest on the practical necessity of dealing separately with documents that could be inspected on the spot and those that were voluminous and required retention for effective examination.

Conclusion: Section 13(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was held not to contravene articles 14 or 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.

---