SIDDEBWARA RICE MILL Vs. C T O INT DAVANGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group after notice to respondent, is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel for parties.

(2.) The petitioner has alleged that the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Davangere, visited the Rice Mill premises of the petitioner at about 3.45 p.m. and started indiscriminately collecting books of account and other records available in the premises of the. Rice Mill. He has narrated the number of books that were taken custody of by the respondent. The respondent at the time, of seizure as above, gave a receipt which is produced as Ex-A to the petition. There after, in spite of several reminders by the petitioner, the respondent did not return the books of accounts and other records as per Ex-A. Aggrieved by the non-return, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, inter alia contending tha,t the seizure was illegal and in any event the respondent had no authority to retain the books beyond 30 days from the date of seizure unless and until he had obtained the orders of superior officers permitting him to do so in writing, in accordance with the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 28 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent has filed his statement of objections denying the allegations that the books of accounts as per Ext-A were seized in the manner described by the petitioner. Denying the allegations of the petitioner he has asserted that seizure of it by him during inspection was done normally and cannot be said to be illegal.

(3.) Some of the facts are not in dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the seizure was illegal or not on the basis of the pleadings.