Taxing statute retention of seized documents may be validated by post-period approval where no prior approval bar exists

Retention of seized books and documents beyond 120 days under section 44(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was held capable of validation by approval obtained after the period expired, because the provision required recorded reasons and approval but did not expressly insist on prior approval or prohibit continued retention meanwhile. The absence of negative wording, unlike the Income-tax Act provision cited for comparison, meant no additional restriction could be read into the taxing statute. On that basis, the seizure and continued retention were not illegal, and the notice calling for production of accounts remained valid because it was based on lawfully retained material.

---

---

Issues: Whether retention of seized books and documents beyond 120 days under section 44(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 required prior approval of the Commissioner and whether the notice calling for production of accounts was invalid.

Analysis: The proviso to section 44(3) permits retention beyond 120 days if reasons are recorded and the Commissioner's approval is obtained. The provision does not impose an express bar on continued retention before approval, unlike section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which contains a negative covenant against retention beyond the prescribed period without approval. The absence of such prohibitory language in the Sales Tax Act, coupled with the use of the expression "approval" rather than "prior approval" elsewhere in the Act, indicates that the approval contemplated by section 44(3) may be obtained even after the expiry of 120 days. In a taxing statute, words cannot be added by implication unless compelled by the text. Since the retention was supported by the Commissioner's approval, the seizure and continued retention were not illegal. The notice seeking production of accounts was founded on the material lawfully retained and did not become invalid merely because the petitioner demanded return of the seized documents.

Conclusion: The challenge to the retention of the seized documents and to the notice failed; the approval obtained after 120 days was valid and the notice was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute permits retention of seized documents beyond a prescribed period upon approval, but does not expressly require prior approval or impose an express statutory bar, ex post facto approval may validate continued retention.

---