Unauthorized retention of seized records beyond the statutory period could not be cured by a later prospective amendment.

Retention of seized account books beyond thirty days without prior permission from the next higher authority under the proviso to section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was unauthorized, because the required sanction was obtained only after the original retention period had expired. The later amendment extending the retention period to sixty days was held to operate prospectively and could not validate a custody that had already become illegal before the amendment came into force. The petitioner was therefore entitled to return of the seized books and records.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could retain the seized account books and records beyond thirty days without obtaining prior permission from the next higher authority under the proviso to section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and whether a later amendment extending the retention period could validate the continued retention.

Analysis: The seizure was effected on 4 July 1978, when the proviso to section 28(3) permitted retention of accounts, registers, records and documents only up to thirty days at a time unless permission of the next higher authority was obtained. The record showed that the requisite permission was obtained only after the expiry of the thirty-day period, so the continued custody of the books had already become unauthorized. The later amendment enhancing the retention period to sixty days was held to operate prospectively and could not cure the illegality that had accrued before the amendment came into force.

Conclusion: The retention beyond thirty days without prior sanction was illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing return of the seized books and records.

---