Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rule 61 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 barred the court from summoning and examining assessment records and the Commercial Tax Officer as a witness in the suit.
Analysis: Rule 61 was examined in light of its language, its origin in the corresponding income-tax provision, and the absence of any non obstante clause excluding the operation of the Indian Evidence Act. The rule created confidentiality for records, but its exceptions and structure did not amount to an absolute prohibition on court process. Since the Commissioner had permitted production of the record and the officer was summoned as a witness, the Evidence Act governed the examination, and the State rule could not curtail the court's powers in the manner contended.
Conclusion: Rule 61 did not create an embargo on the court's power to summon or use the records in the manner attempted, and the objection to their use was untenable.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order rejecting the objection was set aside, and the evidence based on the summoned records was held to be admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a non obstante clause excluding the Evidence Act, a confidentiality rule in a sales tax enactment does not override the court's evidentiary powers or create an absolute bar against summoning and examining the relevant records.