Search and seizure under sales tax law upheld where reasons were recorded, safeguards met, and objections were treated as irregularities.

Search and seizure under the sales tax law was upheld where the authorised officer was separately empowered by notification, despite a different assessment assignment order. The Court treated the search safeguards as satisfied because prior information of tax evasion was received, preliminary enquiry was made, reasons were recorded, and superior approval was obtained before the surprise search. Objections about non-local witnesses, alleged absence at the start of the search, indiscriminate seizure, receipt, and retention of documents were treated as irregularities rather than illegality, since the contemporaneous record supported the search and the retention approvals were in place. The challenge to the search and seizure therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer was competent to conduct the search and seizure notwithstanding the assignment of assessment powers to the Assistant Commissioner under the jurisdictional order; (ii) whether the search was invalid for non-compliance with the safeguards governing search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, including recording of reasons and formation of reasonable belief; (iii) whether the seizure was vitiated because the search witnesses were not of the locality or were allegedly not present at the commencement of the search; and (iv) whether the seizure was illegal for being indiscriminate, for want of proper receipt, or for retention beyond the permitted period without approval.

Issue (i): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer was competent to conduct the search and seizure notwithstanding the assignment of assessment powers to the Assistant Commissioner under the jurisdictional order.

Analysis: The special power of search, inspection and seizure under the sales tax law was treated as a specific provision distinct from the general distribution of assessment jurisdiction. The existence of an order assigning assessment functions to the Assistant Commissioner did not displace the separate statutory power to authorise an officer to search and seize where the Act itself conferred that power. The search power was treated as one that could be exercised by the authorised officer under the special provision, and the respondent was found to have been duly empowered by notification.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed and the search was held to be competent.

Issue (ii): Whether the search was invalid for non-compliance with the safeguards governing search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, including recording of reasons and formation of reasonable belief.

Analysis: The search was required to satisfy the safeguards governing searches, namely reasonable grounds, an opinion that the materials could not otherwise be obtained without undue delay, recording of reasons, and specification of the articles sought. On the record, the officer had received prior information of tax evasion, made preliminary enquiries, recorded reasons before conducting the surprise search, and obtained superior approval. The search was therefore not arbitrary and the required procedural safeguards were treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The search was not invalid on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the seizure was vitiated because the search witnesses were not of the locality or were allegedly not present at the commencement of the search.

Analysis: The fact that the attesting witnesses were not local residents did not, by itself, render the search illegal. At most, such a circumstance could make the search irregular. On the evidence, the Court preferred the contemporaneous record and the police diary entry over the later affidavits filed by the witnesses, and found that the witnesses were associated with the search in a manner sufficient to negative the allegation of total absence at the relevant stage.

Conclusion: No illegality was made out on account of the witnesses.

Issue (iv): Whether the seizure was illegal for being indiscriminate, for want of proper receipt, or for retention beyond the permitted period without approval.

Analysis: The seizure order itself recorded reasons for taking the documents and showed application of mind to the relevance of the seized materials. A broad scrutiny of documents during a search was permissible, and an error of judgment in selecting documents for seizure would not, by itself, vitiate the search. The seizure order and accompanying endorsement were treated as sufficient receipt, and the records showed that permission for retention beyond the statutory period had been obtained in time and renewed periodically.

Conclusion: The seizure was not illegal on these grounds.

Final Conclusion: The Court found that the search and seizure were lawfully undertaken and that none of the grounds advanced established illegality or invalidity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A search and seizure under the sales tax law will not be struck down where the authorised officer records reasons, forms a reasonable belief on relevant information, substantially complies with the prescribed safeguards, and the objections raised disclose only irregularity rather than illegality.

---