PARVATHI AMMAL Vs. MARI REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a question of interpretation of section 57 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Certain assessment records were sought to be summoned by the petitioner in a suit which he instituted and which is pending disposal. Objection was raised to marking of some of the documents by the plaintiff as evidence on the ground that those documents were privileged and should be treated as confidential under section 57(1) of the Act. THIS objection was upheld by the court below. THIS petition is to revise that order. The contention for the petitioner is that the scope of section 57(1) is limited to voluntary disclosure of the records specified therein by the officer concerned and does not extend to the powers of civil courts to summon then. In other words, the argument for the petitioner is that section 57(1) does not cover involuntary disclosure of the records specified in the sub-section. Section 57(1) reads :

(2.) ACT shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed." Sub-section (2) provides for certain savings from the scope of sub-section (1) one of which is that sub-section (1) will not apply to disclosure of the particulars covered by the sub-section to a civil court in any suit to which the Government are party and which relates to any matter arising out of any proceeding under the ACT. At first sight sub-section (1) may appear to operate as a bar to disclosure even involuntarily. But a comparison of this sub-section with section 54(1) of the Indian Income-tax ACT, 1922, clearly brings out the difference in the scope of the relative provisions. That section in the Income-tax ACT which contains a prohibition analogous to section 57(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax ACT, goes further and directs that