Statutory limits on retention of seized records require written reasons and prior approval before continued custody can continue.

Section 13(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act permits seizure of books and documents for investigation, but retention beyond 90 days is unlawful unless the seizing officer records written reasons and obtains prior approval of the Commissioner before expiry of that period. Those safeguards are conditions precedent to continued custody. Where the statutory requirements are not shown to have been complied with, the seized records must be returned, and limited restraint on assessment proceedings may follow to prevent prejudice from unlawful withholding of the records.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retention of the petitioner's seized books of account, documents and diary beyond the statutory period was lawful under section 13(3) and section 13(3-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for return of the seized documents and restraint on further assessment proceedings for the time directed by the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the retention of the petitioner's seized books of account, documents and diary beyond the statutory period was lawful under section 13(3) and section 13(3-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 13(3) permits seizure of account books and other documents for investigation and limits retention to 90 days from the date of seizure. Section 13(3-A) permits further retention only if the seizing officer records reasons in writing and obtains prior approval of the Commissioner of Sales Tax before expiry of the 90-day period. The statutory scheme makes both requirements conditions precedent to continued custody beyond 90 days. In the absence of a counter-affidavit, the petitioner's assertion that these requirements were not complied with remained uncontroverted.

Conclusion: The retention of the seized books of account, documents and diary beyond 90 days was illegal and the petitioner was entitled to their return.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for return of the seized documents and restraint on further assessment proceedings for the time directed by the Court.

Analysis: Once the continued retention of the seized material was found to be unlawful, the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the seized documents. The assessment proceedings were also liable to be restrained for the limited period directed by the Court so that the petitioner could not be prejudiced by the illegal withholding of its records.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to return of the seized material and to the limited restraint on assessment proceedings as directed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed, the seizure could not be continued beyond the statutory limit without compliance with the prescribed safeguards, and the consequential reliefs were granted in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued retention of seized account books and documents beyond the statutory period is invalid unless the seizing authority records reasons in writing and obtains prior approval of the Commissioner within the time prescribed by the statute.

---