Unapproved retention of seized documents cannot be retrospectively cured by later approval, and unlawful custody remains invalid.

Retention of seized books of account and documents under the U.P. Sales Tax Act became unlawful for any intervening period when no valid approval for retention was in force. The governing principle applied was that a later approval cannot retrospectively cure an earlier gap in authorisation, so unauthorised custody during that period remained illegal. The earlier Division Bench view on the same issue was followed, and the seized documents were directed to be returned to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retention of the petitioner's seized books of account and documents became illegal for the period when no valid approval for retention was in force, and whether a later approval could validate that period of unauthorised retention.

Analysis: The books and documents were seized under section 13 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The admitted position was that there was a gap during which no order authorising retention was in force. The governing principle applied was that once retention becomes unauthorised for want of approval within the prescribed period, a later approval cannot retrospectively legitimise the earlier period of unauthorised custody. The earlier Division Bench view on the same principle was followed.

Conclusion: The retention during the gap period was illegal, and the later approval did not cure that defect. The petitioner was entitled to return of the seized documents.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and directions were issued for return of the seized documents to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seizure of documents is subject to statutory approval for retention, custody without valid approval for any intervening period is unlawful, and a subsequent approval does not operate retrospectively to validate that unauthorised retention.

---