(1.) These two appeals involve common questions of law and facts. They are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) There is a delay of 3 days in filing Writ Appeal No. 467 of 1988. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in this case and we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay and we allow the same.
(3.) The respondent and a team of officers under him entered on 13th March, 1987 the business premises of the appellant in W.A. No. 467 of 1988 and seized several documents and books. The case of the respondent is that they had information that the appellant is effecting stock transfers of goods, such as silk fabrics, to its various show rooms outside the State of Karnataka. In order to verify the correctness of such transactions and also to verify whether the dealer is complying with the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the inspection of the office was taken up and at that time, an officer of the appellant-company was present who made available the required books of accounts and other documents. A preliminary verification of the relevant documents revealed certain discrepancies. Thereafter the said officer in exercise of his power under section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act seized the documents from the said officer of the appellant as listed below : Exhibit A-1 One box file containing stock transfer invoices October, 1983 to July, 1984. Exhibit A-2 One box file containing stock transfer invoices July, 1984 to September, 1984. Exhibit A-3 One box file containing stock transfer invoices December, 1984 to September, 1984. Exhibit A-4 One box file containing stock transfer invoices for June, 1986 onwards. Exhibit A-5 One box file containing stock transfer invoices 30th September, 1985 to May, 1986. Exhibit B-1 One indent book 16th February, 1985 to 22nd December, 1985.