D.S.Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) This petition was presented in this Court in January, 1990. On 25th January, 1990, the court granted a month's time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit was filed within the time fixed. On 9th April, 1990, the court again granted a month's time for filing counter-affidavit. The respondents again failed to file counter-affidavit. In spite of time being granted the respondents are not filing counter-affidavit. Today, there is no prayer for grant of further time for filing counter-affidavit. In these circumstances we have no choice but to accept the averments made in the petition and proceed to determine the controversy raised in the petition on the basis of the uncontroverted averments of the petitioner. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for grant of the following three reliefs : (A) Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices dated 4th December, 1989, in respect of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called "the Act", and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called "the Central Act", after remand. Notices are annexures 14 and 15 to the petition ; (B) Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to return the books of account, other documents and diary of the petitioner seized on 21st August, 1987 and 8th December, 1987 ; (C) Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding to assess the petitioner for the assessment years under reference till return of the seized books of account, documents and diary. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, for the present, relief (A), i.e., for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notices of assessment proceedings is not pressed by the petitioner and the court may confine the consideration of the petition with reference to reliefs (B) and (C) only.
(3.) The submission on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the retention of the seized account books, etc., is that it was in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 of the Act inasmuch as the documents seized were retained for a period beyond 90 days and for retaining a document beyond a period of 90 days two conditions are required to be satisfied. But in the instant case conditions were not satisfied. These two conditions are : recording of reasons in writing by the authority seizing the document and prior approval of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to retain the documents, etc., obtained before the expiry of the period of 90 days, for which period the documents could be retained under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act.;