Criminal Procedure Code may support tax-evasion searches where a special tax statute does not exclude it expressly.

Where a special taxing statute does not expressly exclude the procedural machinery of the Code of Criminal Procedure, investigative powers under the Code may be used for suspected tax evasion if not inconsistent with that statute. The Gauhati HC noted that the search and seizure of the assessee's books were carried out on the basis of a warrant issued in the course of a cognizable offence investigation, and, in the absence of the records, the factual basis in the respondents' affidavit was not displaced. On that footing, the seizure was not treated as illegal merely because it was not shown to have been made under the precise machinery of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search and seizure of the assessee's books of account, conducted on the basis of a search warrant issued in the course of a tax-evasion investigation, was illegal for not being taken strictly under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, and whether the Commissioner was bound to interfere in revision.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the investigative steps had to be confined to the special taxing statute or whether recourse could validly be had to the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation into suspected tax evasion. The Court noted that the Act contained provisions dealing with offences and penalties, but the respondents asserted that the search and seizure were undertaken in aid of investigation into a cognizable offence and pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the absence of the records, the Court was not in a position to displace the factual basis disclosed by the respondents' affidavit. The Court held that where the special law does not exhaustively exclude the procedural machinery of the Code, the Code may operate to the extent not inconsistent with the special statute. On that basis, the seizure could not be treated as illegal merely because it was not shown to have been made under the precise machinery of the taxing Act.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were not held to be illegal, and the writ challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned action was sustained and the writ petition stood dismissed, leaving the revenue authorities' action undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express exclusion, procedural powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure may be resorted to for investigation of suspected tax evasion, and a search or seizure made in that course is not invalid merely because it is not executed under the special taxing statute's own machinery.

---