Illegal search and seizure under sales tax law requires return of seized material and nullifies proceedings based on it.

Search and seizure under the Mysore Sales Tax Act were held illegal where the intelligence officer entered the business premises unexpectedly, made no prior requisition for production of accounts, and failed to comply with the criminal procedure safeguards incorporated by the statute. On that basis, the seized books and documents could not lawfully be retained. The court further held that restitution had to extend to copies and notes taken from the seized material, because retaining derivative records would undermine the protection against unlawful search. Proceedings founded on the illegal search were therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the search and seizure of the assessee's books and documents by the intelligence officer under section 28 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 were lawful; (ii) whether, if the search and seizure were illegal, the assessee was entitled to return of the seized material, including copies and notes, and to quashing of the proceedings founded on such search.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure of the assessee's books and documents by the intelligence officer under section 28 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 were lawful.

Analysis: Section 28 empowered production, inspection, entry, search and seizure, but the proviso required searches to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The factual materials showed that no prior requisition to produce accounts had been made, the visit was a surprise one, and the documents were not in truth voluntarily delivered. The surrounding circumstances established that the officer had searched the business premises and seized the books and documents without following the statutory safeguards governing search and seizure.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were illegal and unauthorised.

Issue (ii): Whether, if the search and seizure were illegal, the assessee was entitled to return of the seized material, including copies and notes, and to quashing of the proceedings founded on such search.

Analysis: Once the search was held illegal, the material recovered pursuant to it could not be retained by the department. The court held that complete restoration was necessary, which extended to copies and notes made from the seized books and documents, since allowing retention of such derivative material would defeat the safeguards against unlawful searches. Proceedings initiated on the basis of the illegal search were also unsustainable.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to return of the seized books, documents, copies and notes, and the proceedings based on the illegal search were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in full, with directions for restitution of all seized material and annulment of the consequential proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises search and seizure only subject to the safeguards of the criminal procedure code, any search made in breach of those safeguards is illegal, and the entire consequential material and proceedings founded on it must be restored or quashed.

---