Specific seizure safeguards override record-preservation rules; continued retention of books of account was unlawful without mandatory compliance.

Section 16(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and rule 46 require recorded reasons and compliance with the prescribed safeguards before seized books of account can be retained beyond the permitted period. Rule 35, which concerns preservation of assessment records, does not override that specific seizure-and-retention scheme. Continued retention cannot be justified by treating seized books as part of the assessment record when the mandatory requirements for extended retention have not been met. The lawful effect is that the extended retention was invalid, and the books had to be returned, with photocopies retained if needed for departmental records.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sales tax authorities could retain the petitioner's seized books of account without complying with the procedure for seizure and extended retention under section 16(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with rule 46 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, on the plea that the documents had become part of the assessment record under rule 35 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules.

Analysis: Section 16(3) permits seizure of accounts, registers or documents only on recorded reasons and authorises retention only for so long as necessary for examination or prosecution. Rule 46 adds a further safeguard by limiting retention beyond the prescribed period unless reasons are recorded and, where applicable, authorisation for longer retention is obtained. Rule 35, which deals with preservation of assessment case records, cannot override the specific statutory scheme governing seizure and retention of books of account. The specific provisions controlling seizure and retention must prevail over the general record-preservation rule, and the Revenue cannot indirectly continue retention by treating seized books as assessment records when the mandatory requirements for retention have not been fulfilled.

Conclusion: The extended retention of the seized books of account was unlawful, and the petitioner was entitled to their return.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the authorities were directed to return the seized books of account, while retaining only photocopies if required for their record.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific statutory procedure for seizure and extended retention of books of account cannot be defeated by invoking a general record-preservation rule, and non-compliance with the mandatory safeguards renders continued retention unlawful.

---