https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157671 Statutory search and seizure powers under section 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were examined against Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g). The provision was treated as valid because it operated only on reasonable grounds to believe tax evasion was being attempted and relevant material would be found, while retention was controlled by time limits, recorded reasons, approval for longer custody, and issuance of a receipt. Residential searches were also restricted by rank, timing, and prior sanction safeguards. The absence of an express pre-search reasons requirement and non-application of section 165 CrPC did not invalidate the scheme. The challenge therefore failed and the provisions were upheld. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:50:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157671 Statutory search and seizure powers under section 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were examined against Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g). The provision was treated as valid because it operated only on reasonable grounds to believe tax evasion was being attempted and relevant material would be found, while retention was controlled by time limits, recorded reasons, approval for longer custody, and issuance of a receipt. Residential searches were also restricted by rank, timing, and prior sanction safeguards. The absence of an express pre-search reasons requirement and non-application of section 165 CrPC did not invalidate the scheme. The challenge therefore failed and the provisions were upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 12 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157671