ABDULLA Vs. ASSANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The disposal of the matter by the lower court is not quite satisfactory, and the case has to be sent back; but in doing so, certain points require to be clarified by this Court. While producing, pursuant to summons, certain records relating to assessments of sales tax, copies of which were applied for by the revision petitioners, who are defendants 4 and 5, the Sales Tax Officer claimed privilege under Rule 47 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, and under S.123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The privilege was upheld by the order sought to be revised, though it is not clear, under which of the above provisions. S.123 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant as the documents do not relate to affairs of State. Rule 47(1) aforesaid, is in the following terms:

(2.) In the present case, S.123 of the Evidence Act being out of the question, the matter has to be examined with reference to S.124. If there is any statement in the assessment file made to the Sales Tax Officer in official confidence, the privilege under S.124 applies to it. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners urged, that under Rules 40 and 41 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, the Sales Tax Officer may summon any person to appear and give evidence before him, and that statements so recorded under process of law, could not be deemed to be made in official confidence. There is authority for this view in Venkatachalla Chettiar v. Sampathu Chettiar. The test to decide, whether a statement was made in official confidence or not, is whether the statement was made, under process of law or not; if it was so made, the privilege under S.124 does not arise. The returns made to the Sales Tax Officer or statements made to him otherwise than under process of law, or orders passed by him, are not made or passed in official confidence. In the present case, it is said, that there is a statement of the plaintiff in the file, but it is not known, whether it was recorded under process of law or not; the above test has to be applied to it and to any other document, if any.

(3.) I therefore come to the conclusion, that the privilege under Rule 47(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, cannot preclude the Court from requiring production of the documents, and directing that copies be furnished, except to the extent, that S.124 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play and excludes any of such documents. This has to be decided by the Court below. The order passed by the Court below is set aside, and the matter will be disposed of afresh, in the light of the above observations. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above; no costs.