SOHAN LAL Vs. NASIB CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties to the suit, from which this revision has arisen, are the erstwhile partners of a firm. In the proceedings before the Commissioner, for taking accounts in pursuance of a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, no books of account were produced by the defendants. The local Commissioner submitted his report. In the course of objections against the report of the local Commissioner, the plaintiff sought to get certain documents produced from the sales tax authorities. When the official of the department appeared with the documents, a privilege in respect thereof was claimed against the production of the documents under Section 26 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The trial court having allowed the said privilege, the plaintiff has come up to this court in revision of that order.

(2.) SUB -section (1) of Section 26 of the Act (which alone is relevant) is reproduced below : 26. (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings before a criminal court, shall, save as provided in Sub-section (3), be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no court shall, save as aforesaid, be entitled to require any officer of the State Government to produce before it any such statement, return, account, document or record or any part thereof or to give evidence before it in respect thereof.

(3.) MR . Satya Parkash Jain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, has firstly made it clear that he does not want the production of any document, statement of record produced before or recorded by the sales tax authorities, except the following two, of which he has shown to me certified copies (which copies have also been shown to Mr. M. S. Rakkar, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents):