A APPATHURAI NADAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first of these petitions is for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 26, 200 alleged to have been illegally seized from their residence on a raid by the Sales Tax Officers on 11th September, 1964. THE other is for prohibition restraining the respondent in that petition from proceeding with the enquiry for assessment for the years 1959-60 to 1963-64, as proposed in his summons dated 19th September, 1964. A. Appathurai Nadar, who is one of the petitioners in W.P. No. 1577 of 1964, is a registered dealer carrying on business in grocery articles and pulses at No. 137, Great Cotton Road, Tuticorin. He had been assessed for the years 1959-60 to 1963-64. On the 11th September, 1964, according to the dealer, a group of six or seven officers of the Commercial Taxes Department, under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Madurai, made a surprise inspection of his place of business, godowns and residence. When they inspected the dealer's residence, No. 73, Thattar Street, Tuticorin, at 12-30 p.m., a large number of relations had gathered in the house in connection with a condolence. THE officers declined to accept the request of the dealer not to humiliate him in the circumstances and insist upon a search.

(2.) AS a result of the search, a sum of Rs. 65, 505 was found in a Godrej safe, of which as the dealer would say, Rs. 60, 00 represented the personal savings of his mother who had died at Sivakasi on 8th September, 1964, and this amount was meant for distribution among her children and the balance of Rs. 5, 505 represented the personal savings of the dealer's wife. They did not lay hands on this cash at the time but took a statement from the dealer. According to him he was made to say in the statements that the total amount represented the proceeds of sales of certain damaged goods effected by him at his residence over a period of six years. In this affidavit in support of the petition he asserts that there was no basis for this statement forced on him by two officers, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sattur, and the ASsistant Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai. Later at 6-30 p.m. the same day, when the dealer was in his shop, the officers of the Sales Tax Department turned up once again in a group demanded of him a sum of Rs. 26, 200 as tax. Notwithstanding the dealer's protest, he was taken to his residence and was forced by the ASsistant Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, to open the Godrej safe and from there he took away, in spite of the protests also of the dealers' wife, a sum of Rs. 26, 200. They then marched back to the dealer's shop and there he was issued two receipts, one for a sum of Rs. 26, 000 and the other for Rs. 200 respectively.

(3.) THE petitioners submit, therefore, that the raid by the Sales Tax Officers at the residence was totally illegal and improper and that they had no authority whatever to take away the sum of Rs. 26, 200. On this basis they ask for a mandamus for a return of this sum.In the other petition, on the basis of the same facts, the dealer, who is the petitioner there, states that he has been served with a summons on 19th September, 1964, in Form No. XII by the second respondent, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivaikuntam II at Tuticorin, to appear and produce on 22nd September, 1964, all his accounts for the years 1959-60 to 1963-64, for an enquiry with reference to the search and inspection conducted on 11th September, 1964. He apprehends that if those proceedings are allowed to go on, the second respondent would, as he fears, make use of the two statements as if they contained admissions of suppressions of turnovers and assess him on that basis, and so this Court should interpose and stop the second respondent from proceeding further by a rule of prohibition.