LexMANGAT RAI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANGAT RAI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH September l, 1969 B [S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMUHAN REDDY, JJ.] c 0 E F G H Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 (2 of 1959)--Ss. 2'1(2), (3) and (4)-Power of search and inspection O'f account books-If Sales Tax Jnspect<k entitled to r.emove olstruction-lf a1nounts to "seizure''- Meaning of "seizure" in s, 29(3). Section 29 sub-section (2) of :he Madhya Pradesh Genoral Sales Tax Act provides in part that a11 accounts relating to the stock-in-trade of any dealer shall f-e open to inspection by the Commissioner; and for this pur- pose sub-section ( 4) empowers the Con1missioner to search any place of business of the dealer. The Sales Tax Inspector visited the shop oi the appellant for a surprise check and wanted to inspect his account books. When the Inspector tried to prevent removal of the books in a clandestine manner by forcibly taking possess~on of them, the appellant used criminal force and was subsequently convicted under ss. 353 and 506(1) I.P.C. In appeal to this Court it we.s contended that the Act did not authorise forcible inspection of accounts and that the Inspector \\'as exercising powers of seizure under s. 29(3) of the Act which he did not have. HELD : Dismissing the appeal, If the powers under sub-section (2) and ( 4) are read together, it would mean that the Commissioner is entitled to search and take hold of the account books even if the assessee, does not place the account books before him. If the Commission\!r does so, he cannot be said to seize the account books. In the Act "sejzure" means that the Commissioner should take into possession the account books and take th~m outside the possession of the assessee. [156 E-Gl In the present case the Sales Tax Inspector having seen the account books in the hands of the assessee was entitled to demand that the account books he shown to him and if he. did forcibly try to take possession of them, he was only attempting to enforce his right of inspection. He cannot be said to have attempte'd to seize the· account books within the meaning of s. 29(3), for, the object was not to dispossess the trader but to hold the books for a temporary period for the purpose of inspection. "[157 E-F] The observation contra in Hazari Lal v. Staie of Blhar [1962) Supp. S.C.R. 419 at 425, held obiter, Com1nission.er of Con1mercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhovar 56 I.T.R. 664, 671 and N. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra [1954] S.C.R. :077; 1096 referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated - September 4, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crimi- nal Appeal No. 492 of 1964. 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1970] 2 S.C.R. A. S. R. Chari, B. P. Mahes/nvari and Sobhag Mal Jai11, for A the appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. In this appeal by special leave the principal question B which arises is whether a Sales Tax Inspector inspecting the accounts under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-Tax Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959) hereinafter referred to as the Act is entitled to remove obstruction to the inspection of account books; in other words, if he attempts to r.emove the obstruction is he acting in the execution of his duties as such. c The facts are not in dispute. On October 24, 1959, Krishan Sahai, Sales Tax Inspector, P.W. 1, alongwith Shri N. J. Warudkar, P.W. 5,. and Shri Harikishan Gupta, P.W. 2, went to the shop of the appellant Mangat Rai, run under •he name and style "Mangat Rai Ram Kumar". The officer visited the shop for a surprise check. He informed the appellant that he wanted to D inspect his account books. At that time they were in the verandah which is common to the shop of the appellant and the neighbouring shop of Munshiram. It is perhaps best to describe what happened in the words of the Inspector: "I entered the shop of the accused for inspection and Shri Warudkar entered the shop of Munshiram. The accused, Harikishan and myself all three entered the shop of the accused. I and Harikishan sat on the Gadi of the accused and the accused Mangat Ram sat near the iron-safe. I asked the accused person to show his account-books for inspection. Many account-books were kept there. He took out 3 note-books of the size of exercise-note- books out of them. I thought he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.