LAKSHMANAN Vs. MUSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this civil revision petition filed by the 1st defendant is whether the order of the Trial Court treating the sales tax return submitted by the 1st respondent - plaintiff to the 2nd respondent Sales Tax Officer for the purpose of his sales tax assessment as a confidential document not liable to be exhibited in evidence in the suit can be revised by this court under S.115 C.P.C. S.115 says:

(2.) In order to ascertain the applicability of the above provision, it is necessary to state the circumstances under which the revision petition is filed. The 1st respondent laid the suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain sum of moneys being the value of coir alleged to have been sold by the former to the latter. During the trial after the evidence of the 1st respondent was closed, the 2nd respondent Sales Tax Officer, was cited and examined as a witness on behalf of the petitioner. While he was being examined, a question was put to him whether he had produced the sales tax file relating to the assessment of the sales tax payable by the 1st respondent His answer being in the affirmative he was directed to produce the file to be marked as part of the record in the case. Objection was then raised both by the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent to the effect that the sales tax file is a confidential document and, therefore, under S.54 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 it was not liable to be produced or marked in the case. On hearing the argument of either side, the Trial Court accepted the contention of the respondents and held that the sales tax file which contained the annual return and other documents could not be produced and marked as they are confidential documents within the purview of S.54 of the aforesaid Act. It is against that order the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) On the basis of S.115 C.P.C. it is required to be shown that there must be "a case" decided by a subordinate court. On this controversy, there had been innumerable decisions as to the scope and effect of the "case decided" which occur in S.115 C.P.C. This controversy is set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court is Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon. AIR 1964 Supreme Court 497. It is stated as follows: