MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. JASWANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Rajpura, dated September 19, 1983, whereby the exemption claimed under Section 26 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), by witness Ajit Kumar Singh, Clerk, office of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, was granted.

(2.) The tenant-petitioner summoned as his witnesses the said Ajit Kumar Singh and Iqbal Singh, Taxation Inspector. From them, the petitioner wanted the production of the application filed by him for obtaining the registration certificate. Before their statements were recorded, they claimed privilege to the documents i.e., the application and the other registration documents of the dealer, under Section 26 of the Act, on the ground that they were of a confidential nature. The learned Rent Controller found that the documents, referred to above, stood fully covered within the purview of Section 26 of the Act and that the privilege had been rightly claimed. As a result, the witnesses were discharged. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant-petitioner has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Section 26 of the Act could not be invoked in the present case because it was the application filed by the petitioner himself for obtaining the registration certificate and, therefore, the question of any confidentiality did not attach to the same. According to the learned counsel, the matter would have been different if the petitioner wanted the production of certain documents which did not relate to him. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ram Murti v. Hans Raj, 1968 CurLJ 945; Income-tax Officer, Jullundur v. State, 1950 AIR(EastPunjab) 306and an unreported judgment of this Court in Sant Singh v. Smt. Jamna Devi, C.R. No. 265 of 1977, decided on March 11, 1977.