Third-party recovery and seizure powers under sales tax law require statutory notice, recorded suspicion, and procedural compliance.

Section 17 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 permits the assessing authority to require a person owing money to a dealer to pay it towards the dealer's arrears, subject to the recipient's right to contest that the amount is not due. The note also explains that section 28 empowers search and seizure of records where there is recorded reason to suspect evasion, and that compliance with the statutory procedure sustains jurisdiction even if the records are found at a connected residential premises. It further notes that prolonged retention of seized originals may be curtailed by directing return of the originals while preserving photostat copies for the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tax authorities had jurisdiction under section 17 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to require the petitioner to withhold payment and divert the amount towards the sales tax arrears of the dealer. (ii) Whether the search and seizure of records from the director's residential premises was within jurisdiction under section 28 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. (iii) Whether the continued retention of the seized documents was lawful, and whether the originals were liable to be returned.

Issue (i): Whether the tax authorities had jurisdiction under section 17 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to require the petitioner to withhold payment and divert the amount towards the sales tax arrears of the dealer.

Analysis: Section 17 authorises the assessing authority to require any person from whom money is due or may become due to a dealer to pay the amount to the authority towards the dealer's dues. The person served with notice is entitled to show that the amount is not due. On the facts, the authorities had reason to believe that amounts were payable by the petitioner to the defaulting dealer, and the statutory demand was therefore competent.

Conclusion: The notice and demand under section 17 were within jurisdiction and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the search and seizure of records from the director's residential premises was within jurisdiction under section 28 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 28 empowers the authorised officer to require production of accounts and, where there is reason to suspect evasion, to seize relevant records for recorded reasons. The record showed recorded suspicion that the books were kept at the director's residence, the authority had attempted verification at the factory, and the search was arranged through the proper official channel. The statutory requirements for invoking section 28 were held to have been complied with.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were lawful and within jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether the continued retention of the seized documents was lawful, and whether the originals were liable to be returned.

Analysis: Although the retention was supported by extensions granted from time to time, the documents had remained with the authorities for an unduly long period. The Court accepted that xerox copies could be kept for the proceedings while the originals could be restored to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The retention was not interfered with in principle, but the authorities were directed to return the originals and retain only photostat copies.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the main challenges to jurisdiction, but the petitioner obtained limited relief as to return of the original seized documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute authorises third-party recovery and seizure upon recorded suspicion of evasion, and the procedural requirements are shown to have been met, the exercise of jurisdiction will not be invalidated merely because the search is conducted at a connected residential premises rather than at the business premises.

---