STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AMRITSAR BEVERAGES LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on August 08,2006

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
VERSUS
AMRITSAR BEVERAGES LTD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

TAURUS EARTHMOVERS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
RUPINDER KAUR VS. SIMARDEEP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-258] [REFERRED]
RABINDRA SINGH VS. FINANCIAL COMMI COOPRATION PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
TAMILNADU ORGANIC PRIVATE LTD VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
ANAMI NARAYAN ROY VS. SUPRAKASH CHAKRAVARTHY INDIAN INHABITANT [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
YASHDEEP TREXIM VS. BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
LAL PATHLABS PVT. LTD. VS. ARVINDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
UPASANA BALI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA PAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
ROHINTON PANTHAKY VS. ARMIN R. PANTHAKY [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
SOORAJ V. SUKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-152] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Situational change how far could give rise to a new interpretation of a statutory provision is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 14659 of 2003.
(3.)The Respondent is a dealer within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act"). A raid was conducted in his premises and a larger number of books and documents were seized by the officers of the Sales Tax Department of the State of Punjab. The documents were in the form of the cash book ledger or other registers. They were contained in a hard disk. Seizure of documents indisputably was done in exercise of the powers of the authorities under Section 14 of the Act, Sub-section (3) whereof reads, thus:
"14. Production and Inspection of Books, Documents and Accounts:

(1) xx xx xxxx

(2) xx xx xxxx

(3) If any officer referred to in sub-section (1) has reasonable ground for believing that any dealer is trying to evade liability for tax or other dues under this Act and that anything necessary for the purpose of an investigation into his liability may be found in any book, account, register or document, he may seize such book, account, register or document, as may be necessary. The officer seizing the book, account, register or document shall forthwith grant a receipt for the same and shall

(a) In the case of book, account, register or document which was being used at the time of seizing, within a period of ten days from the date of seizure, and

(b) in any other case, within a period of sixty days from the date of seizure, return it to the dealer or the person from whose custody it was seized after examination or after having such copies or extracts taken therefrom as may be considered necessary, provided the dealer or the aforesaid person gives a receipt in writing for the book, account, register or document returned to him. The officer may, before returning the book, account, register or document, affix his signatures and his official seal at one or more places thereon, and in such case the dealer or the aforesaid person will be required to mention in the receipt given by him the number of places where the signature and seal of such officers have been affixed on each book, account, register or document"



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.