Sha Hastimal Khimchand vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Ramaprasada Rao, J.—In these two writ petitions, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of prohibition restraining the assessing authority in each of the petitions to revise the assessments for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 on the ground that certain materials recovered in the course of sudden inspection of his business premises by the department, ought not to be relied upon for any purpose and much less for the purpose of revising the assessments as notified. Apparently these writ petitions were filed on the strength of the then precedents ruling on the subject. Now that the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors. v. R.S. Jhaver [1967] 20 S.T.C. 453 (S.C.) has expressed the view that such inspections and recovery of material and documents, which according to the revenue are incriminating in nature, are valid and can be relied upon the writ of prohibition asked for cannot be issued. Even otherwise this Court in Annamalai Chettiar & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 S.T.C. 687 has held that such materials discovered in the course of inspection or raid can be relied on for the purpose of further assessments and the only necessary prerequisite is that a fair opportunity should be given to the assessee to inspect, take notes or copies of such account books or material discovered and retained by the revenue. In the light of the above decisions, which have settled the propositions of law, these writ petitions have to be dismissed. It is however made clear that the revenue in each of these petitions will give sufficient and adequate opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to inspect the accounts and records seized from him and enable him to take copies of the said accounts if necessary and if he so desires. With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.