Retention of seized records remained valid absent statutory duty to communicate higher authority approval; writ petitions were dismissed.

Retention of seized records beyond thirty days under section 41 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held not to become illegal merely because the permission of the next higher authority was not communicated to the dealer. The provision required higher authority approval for continued retention, but it did not impose any statutory duty of communication, so non-communication alone could not vitiate the seizure or retention. As the records had already been directed to be returned, no further relief survived and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retention of seized records beyond thirty days without communication of permission from the next higher authority rendered the detention illegal under section 41 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The provision relied on contemplated retention of seized records beyond thirty days with permission of the next higher authority, but it did not require communication of that permission to the dealer. In the absence of such a statutory requirement, non-communication could not by itself invalidate the retention. As the records had already been directed to be returned, no surviving relief remained in the writ petitions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notices failed and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the absence of communication of permission for continued retention did not vitiate the seizure or retention, and the petitions were disposed of by dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits further retention of seized records with higher authority approval but does not require communication of that approval, lack of communication does not make the retention illegal.

---