Retention of seized business records is valid only when reasonably necessary for prosecution; originals should be returned if copies suffice.

Section 28(3)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was construed as constitutionally valid only as a limited power to retain seized accounts, registers or documents for prosecution. The court rejected the challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g), holding that retention is not an unguided authority to keep dealers' records indefinitely. The originals may be retained only where they are genuinely necessary for prosecution, such as when the documents themselves are material evidence or the genuineness of entries or handwriting is in issue. Where certified or authenticated copies are sufficient, the originals should ordinarily be returned with minimal prejudice to the dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the last part of section 28(3)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, authorising retention of seized accounts, registers or documents beyond 30 days when required for prosecution is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, and if valid, what is the true scope of the power to retain such records.

Analysis: The provision was challenged as conferring an unguided and arbitrary power to keep dealers' books indefinitely on the pretext of prosecution. The provision was upheld by construing it as a reasonable restriction intended to protect the State's interest in tax collection and prosecution. The power to retain originals is not unlimited; it must be confined to cases where retention is genuinely necessary for prosecution, such as where the original records themselves are material objects or the genuineness or handwriting in the entries is in dispute. Where certified copies or authenticated copies are sufficient for the prosecution, the originals should ordinarily be returned, with the least prejudice to the dealer consistent with the public interest in administration of justice.

Conclusion: The provision is constitutionally valid. Retention of seized records is permissible only to the extent reasonably necessary for prosecution, and if copies suffice, the originals should be returned.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to retain seized business records is valid if read as a limited power exercisable only when retention is reasonably necessary for prosecution, and not as authority for indefinite detention where certified copies will suffice.

---