Skip to content


Kesri Soda Water Factory and Sweet Shop Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 5546 of 1975
Judge
Reported in[1977]39STC122(P& H)
AppellantKesri Soda Water Factory and Sweet Shop
RespondentState of Punjab and anr.
Appellant Advocate S.P. Jain, Adv.
Respondent Advocate G.S. Tulsi, Adv. for respondent No. 2
Excerpt:
.....clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or..........documents from the possession of the petitioner-factory on 2nd august, 1974.(1) current cash book written up to 29th march, 1974.(2) current day book up to 30th july, 1974.(3) current ledger.(4) one rough ledger with 1 to 142 written pages.(5) bill book (exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 30, 31, 32 and 33).(6) 32 loose papers (27 sale bills and 5 other loose papers regarding purchases).(7) one loose voucher file.(8) some loose credit vouchers.2. the grievance of the petitioner-factory is that more than a year has passed since these documents were taken into possession and respondent no. 2 has not returned the documents to it in contravention of section 14(3) of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948 (hereinafter called the act).3. on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that.....
Judgment:

M.R. Sharma, J.

1. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Jullundur, seized the following documents from the possession of the petitioner-factory on 2nd August, 1974.

(1) Current cash book written up to 29th March, 1974.

(2) Current day book up to 30th July, 1974.

(3) Current ledger.

(4) One rough ledger with 1 to 142 written pages.

(5) Bill book (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 30, 31, 32 and 33).

(6) 32 loose papers (27 sale bills and 5 other loose papers regarding purchases).

(7) One loose voucher file.

(8) Some loose credit vouchers.

2. The grievance of the petitioner-factory is that more than a year has passed since these documents were taken into possession and respondent No. 2 has not returned the documents to it in contravention of Section 14(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).

3. On behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that one rough ledger with written pages from 1 to 142 had been impounded by the income-tax authorities, that documents mentioned at S. Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have been returned and that the remaining documents mentioned at S. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are being verified. Mr. Tulsi, the learned counsel for the respondent, states that the petitioner-factory itself is to blame inasmuch as it did not appear before the authority on various dates of hearing.

4. We are not impressed with the plea raised by Mr. Tulsi. The provision of law is quite clear. Section 14(3) of the Act provides that some documents will have to be returned within 10 days and the other could be retained for a period up to 60 days only from the date of seizure. It is not necessary to enter into a classification of the documents because both the periods mentioned in the statute have long passed. The law provides that the Sales Tax Officer may, if he is so advised, retain copies of the documents but he is under no circumstances authorised to retain them beyond a period of 60 days. The seizure of the documents being against the mandatory provision of law has to be set aside and we order accordingly. The documents mentioned at S. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 will be returned forthwith to the petitioner-factory. It will also be entitled to costs of this petition, which are assessed at Rs. 200.

5. Regarding the documents mentioned at S. No. 4, no relief can be given to the petitioner-factory in these proceedings because the Income-tax Officer, who impounded this document has not been impleaded as a party. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner-factory to seek the appropriate relief by making an application to the said authority or by availing of other remedies which may be available to it under law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //