Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a raid conducted by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence Branch) at the premises of the first appellant, a dealer registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. During the raid, a duplicate set of accounts was discovered being prepared, and various account books were seized. The appellant and others subsequently snatched away the bundle containing the seized account books. They were charged with dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted them of the dacoity charge, but the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted them, and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment. In appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the inspection, search, and seizure were illegal because: (i) the power under Section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act could only be exercised at a place of business declared by the dealer under the Act and Rules, and the premises raided were not so declared; (ii) the search was conducted in the course of investigation of a cognizable offence and attracted the safeguards of Section 165(4) read with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which were not followed; and (iii) the sentences should be mitigated. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "place of business" under Section 2(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act and found that it includes any place where the dealer keeps accounts of sales. Since the accounts were maintained at the raided premises, it qualified as a place of business. Therefore, the inspection, search, and seizure under Section 17 were legal. The Court found no merit in the challenge based on the Criminal Procedure Code, and upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Sales Tax - Place of Business - Definition - Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, Section 2(1), Section 17 - Place where dealer keeps accounts of sales qualifies as place of business for purpose of inspection, search and seizure under Section 17 - Held that the premises where duplicate accounts were found were within the definition, thus inspection and seizure were legal (Paras N.A.).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the search and seizure under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was illegal for not being at a declared place of business or for non-compliance with sections 165(4) and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and whether the sentence should be mitigated.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the place from which account books were seized was a place of business within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as accounts of sales were kept there, and therefore the inspection, search and seizure under section 17 were legal. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- place of business under Bihar Sales Tax Act includes any place where accounts of sales are kept
- not limited to declared premises
- search under Section 17 not subject to Criminal Procedure Code search procedures
