2013 (6) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of law first before adverting to the factual aspects in the peculiar circumstances of the case though it ought to be vice versa while pronouncing a judgment. 2. Section 44(6) of the Act reads as under:      "44. Power to order production of accounts and powers of entry, inspection, etc.-(1) to (5) . . .      (6) The accounts, registers, records or other documents seized under sub-section (5) shall not be retained by the officer seizing them beyond a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure except with the permission of the next higher authority, unless they are required for any prosecution under this Act:      Provided that the next higher au....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rajvel and Company v. State of Kerala [1993] 88 STC 551 (Ker); [1990] 185 ITR 655 (Ker).      (iii) Joseph Antony v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Incometax and Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 146 (Ker). Mr. Justice P.A. Mohammed in the last of the decisions aforequoted has highlighted the necessity to return the documents to the dealer without keeping him on tenterhooks and the following observations therein are apposite (page 151 in 95 STC):      "6. . . . After seizing the documents the dealer shall not be kept in suspense without knowing as to what happened to the documents seized from him. Even though the seizure of documents is a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public, c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eport on the same day. Exhibit P4 request dated July 26, 2012 was put in by the petitioner for the first time well beyond the period of 180 days for return of the documents retained by the Intelligence Officer. This was followed by repeated requests evidenced by exhibit P6 letter dated August 22, 2012 and exhibit P8 letter dated September 6, 2012 all of which met with evasive reply by the Intelligence Officer. The crux of the reply offered to the petitioner is that the documents retained would be required "for taking prosecution proceedings under the Act" about which the details were wholly absent. 5. There is of course a vague statement in the counter-affidavit filed by the Intelligence Officer to the effect that "the prosecution procee....