P K ADIMOOLAM CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. These are two connected revision cases which are preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Vellore, in C.C. Nos. 177 and 178 of 1955, and which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot at Vellore in C. A. Nos. 178 and 179 of 1956.

(2.) THE short facts are :- THE revision petitioner, P. K. Adimoolam Chettiar, is a registered dealer. He is doing business in rice, paddy and groundnut in Polur on his own account and besides this he is a partner in the Gajendra Rice Mills at Kommandal, which is about four miles from Polur. On the 14th February, 1953, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer visited the Gajendra Rice Mills. Natesa Pillai, the clerk of this Adimoolam Chettiar for his individual business, was writing some accounts. THE accused was not there. THE clerk produced seven account books and gave a statement. In that statement Natesa Pillai has mentioned that he was the clerk of Adimoolam Chettiar for his individual business, that since Adimoolam Chettiar became a partner of the Gajendra Rice Mills in May, 1952, he was doing most of his business in rice in the premises of the Gajendra Rice Mills and that the account books produced by him related to the individual business of Adimoolam Chettiar and recorded the real transactions. Adimoolam Chettiar turned up before this officer on 15th March, 1953. He furnished similar information reduced into writing to this officer and also produced one more ledger relating to the period from 14th January, 1952, to 18th July, 1952. He also furnished information that he was maintaining two sets of accounts, viz., one set regarding real transactions and the other set regarding transactions for official consumption. He also gave information that the account books produced on the previous day by his clerk Natesa Pillai, as well as the additional account book furnished by him on that day, related to his business and that in particular those account books besides the two books kept officially contained his real transactions; and he gave details of the amount of turnover which had been omitted in the accounts intended for official consumption. THEre can be no dispute that several entries found in the case of real transaction accounts are not to be found in the accounts maintained for official consumption and on the foot of which apparently returns were to be submitted to the authorities.

(3.) POINT 1 :- There is no substance in this contention. Section 14(2) empowers the officer concerned to have inspection at all reasonable times of all accounts and registers maintained by the dealer in the ordinary course of the business, the goods in their possession and their offices, stocks, godowns, vessels or vehicles. "It means that he should not enter the premises at odd and unearthly hours, as, for instance, at dead of night or at inconvenient times, such as dinner time, or other intervals when the dealer is expected to be away from the premises. While the officer must have full scope for his exploratory attempts to find out the truth by sudden and surprise visits or inspections, it should not be allowed to degenerate into mala fide encroachments on the freedom and liberty of the subjects so as to reduce them to the position of helpless victims of executive tyranny and inquisitions. The purpose of inspection can be achieved only if there is a facility afforded for entering any premises for such inspection, such as an office etc., in which business is done and this is what is provided for in section 14(3). While the officer has got the power to enter for effectuating the inspection mentioned in the section, the power should be exercised with due regard to the bona fide convenience of the dealer so that the sanctity of his home and the necessity of his leisure are not violated or encroached upon. While it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule in this regard, it is at the same time desirable and proper to postulate that the officer should so arrange the inspection that while they facilitate the effective availability of the necessary information or material sought, they would not entail undue hardship or inconvenience on the dealers concerned." Per the excellent Commentary published by the Law Weekly, Madras, Shri N. R. Raghavachariar's Sales Tax in Madras, pages 207-208. In fact this section was criticised in the Legislative Council as giving almost "inquisitorial powers" to the officers under the Act and in order to safequard misuse of power under the section, an amendment was moved that the officer so empowered should not be below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer. On the assurance of the Premier that the Government would pay attention to the matter in choosing officers the amendment was withdrawn, because at that time unlike the Income-tax Act this Act conferred power of entry for inspection and while the Income-tax Officer entering the premises of an assessee for inspection would be committing the offence of trespass, Achhru Ram v. Emperor ((1925) I.L.R. 7 Lah. 104; A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 326), an officer entering premises under this Act commits no offence : see page 130 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act by Sundara Vyas (2nd Edn.). Therefore, we have to steer clear of the two extremes and decided upon the circumstances of each case as to what constitutes reasonable time. In this case the time of inspection though it might have proved unpalatable and unwelcome to this registered dealer, who had something to hide, can hardly be described as unreasonable. On the other hand, the premises were open and the clerk Natesa Pillai was attending to the business of writing the individual accounts of this registered dealer. Therefore, point 1 fails.