Search and seizure safeguards under sales tax law required compliance before books could be seized; unlawful seizure set aside.

Seizure of a dealer's account books under section 28 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a search and seizure, not a mere inspection, because the pleadings alleged a raid, search of the premises and cupboards, and seizure of books without the required safeguards. Those allegations were not properly controverted by a statement of objections or affidavits from officers with personal knowledge. As no compliance with the proviso to section 28(2) was shown before the search was undertaken, the officer's action could not be sustained. The seizure was therefore held illegal, and the dealer was entitled to return of the seized articles and copies or notes made from them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the dealer's account books was a lawful exercise of power under section 28 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, or whether it was a search and seizure carried out without compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards.

Analysis: The action was described by the officer as an inspection followed by seizure, but the pleadings specifically alleged a raid, search of the premises and cupboards, and seizure of books without the safeguards required for search. Those allegations were not effectively controverted by a proper statement of objections or by affidavits from officers with personal knowledge. On the materials before the Court, the transaction was treated as a search and seizure and not a mere inspection. Since the proviso to section 28(2) required compliance with procedural safeguards before search could be undertaken, and no such compliance was shown, the officer's action could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized articles and copies or notes made therefrom.

---