COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX VS FOOD CONSULTS (PVT.) LTD., 2007 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 2356 (2006)

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-3-2004 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.7035 and 10311 of 2000).

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----Ss.38, 40 & 40-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.96 to 105---Search of premises and .seizure of records by Sales Tax Officer---Scope---Search authorized under. Sales Tax Act, 1990 must be carried strictly in accordance with provisions of Ss.96 to 105, Cr.P.C.---Such search and seizure would be illegal, if made or caused to be made without disclosing reason to believe that there was urgency for entering into premises without taking permission from Magistrate---Principles.

Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise (Enforcement) v. Messrs Mega Tech (Pvt., Ltd. 2005 PTD 1933 ref.

Izhar-ul-Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J-- The listed petitions have been filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-3-2004. Relevant para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow: --

"In view of the above discussion, it is held that in both the cases the purported visit or access by the concerned officers was raids designed at search and seizure of the records and assets which for the above recorded reasons are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The proceedings and actions taken in consequence of such raids, searches and seizures including the issuance of any show-cause notice, registration of an F.I.R., the complaint, prosecution or recovery proceedings, are also adjudged to be illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority. The respondents shall in both cases (Food Consults and Diplex) return to the petitioners, within a period of 30 days, the records, accounts, papers or the other property seized during such raids and searches. The respondents are further restrained from using the seized material or records etc. in any manner whatsoever in any proceedings or actions against the petitioner. "

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that-leave to appeal has already been granted in such like cases in C.P. Nos.1711, 1716, 1911-L of 2003 and C.P.No.982-L of 2004 vide girder dated 16-3-2006. His attention has been drawn towards the judgment of this Court in Collector of Sales Tax, & Central Excise (Enforcement) v. Messrs Mega Tech (Pvt.) Ltd. 2005 PTD 1933 which has been- referred to in the aforesaid leave granting order.

3. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that probably the question involved in those cases would be little bit different from the instant ones. As far as it squarely falls within the four corners of law, it has already been interpreted in the case of Collector of Sales Tax ibid. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once this Court has interpreted that the requirement of law where an officer of sales tax has reason to believe that any document or things, which, in his opinion, may be relevant to any proceedings under the Act, are concealed or kept in any place and there is a danger of removal of such documents or records, he may, after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate, enter that place and cause a search to be made at any time. The mandate of law as enunciated in subsection (2) seems to be that search authorized under the above provision of law shall be carried strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Such provision are contained in sections 96 to 105 of the Code and need not be dilated upon as admittedly the petitioner did not invoke these important provisions of law while seizing the records of the respondent-company.

4. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the High Court was quite justified to hold that no reasons were put forward to believe that there was urgency for entering into the premises without taking permission from the Magistrate. Thus the judgment of the High Court is based on correct interpretation of law under the circumstances and admits of no interference. Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly.

S.A.K./C-24/SCPetitions dismissed.