Mandatory seizure receipt safeguard requires strict compliance, and failure to prove it leaves the acquittal undisturbed.

The receipt requirement under section 14(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was treated as a mandatory safeguard governing seizure of books and documents. The provision's use of "shall", its protective purpose, and the need to restrain misuse of inspection and seizure powers required strict compliance, including immediate issuance of a receipt on seizure. Because the evidence did not satisfactorily prove that a receipt was offered at the time of seizure, non-compliance with the statutory safeguard meant the acquittal could not be disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement under section 14(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, to forthwith grant a receipt on seizure of books or documents was mandatory, and whether non-compliance justified upholding the acquittal.

Analysis: The power of inspection and seizure under section 14 of the Act was recognised, but the Court focused on the safeguard built into sub-section (3), namely the duty to issue a receipt immediately on seizure and to return the seized material within the prescribed time. The evidence did not satisfactorily prove that any receipt had been offered at the time of seizure. The use of the word "shall", the protective object of the provision, and the consequences of treating it as merely directory led to the conclusion that the safeguard was intended to restrain misuse of the power. The Court also relied on the principle that provisions authorising entry, search, and seizure must be strictly complied with where they contain mandatory protections for the person affected.

Conclusion: The receipt requirement under section 14(3) was mandatory, and the failure to establish compliance meant the acquittal could not be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the seizure was not shown to have been carried out in strict accordance with the statutory safeguard, so the order of acquittal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorising seizure incorporates a protective requirement couched in mandatory language, strict compliance is necessary and non-observance of that safeguard can sustain the invalidation of the adverse action taken on the basis of the seizure.

---