Retention of seized business records requires an existing prosecution, not a mere contemplated one beyond the statutory period.

Records seized under section 28(3)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could be retained beyond thirty days only if they were required for a prosecution already in existence or instituted within that period. A mere intention to launch prosecution later was insufficient, because seizure and continued retention of business records are serious intrusions and must remain strictly within the statutory limits. Retention beyond thirty days on the ground of a contemplated prosecution was therefore not justified, and return of the records was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether records seized under section 28(3)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 could be retained beyond thirty days on the ground of a contemplated prosecution.

Analysis: The provision permits seizure of accounts, registers and documents only when the assessing authority has reason to suspect an attempt to evade tax or fee, and it requires return of the seized records within thirty days unless they are required for a prosecution. Because seizure and continued retention are serious invasions of the dealer's rights, the restriction must be confined to the extent clearly authorised by the statute. The expression "required for a prosecution" was construed to mean a prosecution already in existence, or one instituted within the permissible thirty-day period, and not a mere intention or contemplation to prosecute at some future time.

Conclusion: Retention of the seized records beyond thirty days in anticipation of a prosecution was not justified. The petition was allowed and return of the records was directed, in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises retention of seized business records only if they are required for a prosecution, the power cannot be extended to cover a merely contemplated prosecution beyond the statutory period.

---