TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (8) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The privilege was upheld by the order sought to be revised, though it is not clear, under which of the above provisions. Section 123 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant as the documents do not relate to affairs of State. Rule 47(1) aforesaid, is in the following terms: "All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder, or in any evidence given or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under the Act or the rules made thereunder, or in any record of any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand prepared for the purpose of the Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke up for the omission in the rule and preclude a party from obtaining copies thereof. In spite of the stricter prohibition in section 54(1), Courts have held that the imposition of a ban against disclosure is really the conferment of a privilege on the assessee, which may be waived by him. But the contention on behalf of the revision petitioners was, that under rule 47(1), summons can be issued for the production of the documents in Court, and unless privilege attaches to them under section 123 or 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, their copies can also be furnished to any party. It seems to me, that the effect of the omission in rule 47(1) pointed out above, may be better understood by a study of the corresponding provision in the Indian Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 32 Mad. 62., reached the same conclusion, and held, that the provisions of the Income-tax Act did not preclude the production of the documents in Court, the prohibition in the rule being only against disclosure of information by the officer to other persons, otherwise than in a Court of law. It seems to me that in this respect, rule 47(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, corresponds more to the above rule under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886, than to section 54(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In Allah Bux v. Ratan Lal Jain(1958) A.I.R. 1958 All. 829; 9 S.T.C. 699. , it has been held under section 23(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which corresponds to rule 47(1) except for the last words in the latter, "and shall not be disclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay summon any person to appear and give evidence before him, and that statements so recorded under process of law could not be deemed to be made in official confidence. There is authority for this view in Venkatachalla Chettiar v. Sampathu Chettiar(1909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 62. The test to decide whether a statement was made in official confidence or not, is whether the statement was made under process of law or not; if it was so made, the privilege under section 124 does not arise. The returns made to the Sales Tax Officer or statements made to him otherwise than under process of law, or orders passed by him, are not made or passed in official confidence. In the present case, it is said that there is a statement of the plaintiff in the file, bu....