Case: State Of Punjab  Vs. M/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd.

The Respondent is a dealer within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act"). A raid was conducted in his premises and a larger number of books and documents were seized by the officers of the Sales Tax Department of the State of Punjab. The documents were in the form of the cash book ledger or other registers. They were contained in a hard disk. Seizure of documents indisputably was done in exercise of the powers of the authorities under Section 14 of the Act, Sub-section (3)The officers of the Sales Tax Department asked the Respondents to appear on several occasions so as to enable them to verify to contents thereof. Cooperation from the Respondents was not forthcoming as a result whereof the documents were not returned within the period stipulated thereunderA writ petition was filed by the Respondents herein praying for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to return the seized books, accounts, documents, computer disk in terms of the said provision. Applying the principle of literal interpretation and following an earlier precedent, the High Court not only issued mandamus as had been prayed for but also imposed costs of Rs.2,500/- in each case. It was directed that the costs would be paid by the officers responsible for withholding the books, accounts, etc. personally from their pockets and the same shall not be burden on the State exchequer.

Court's reasoning:
18. It may be true that even in absence of cooperation from the Respondents nothing prevented the authorities of the Sales Tax Department to make out copies of the said hard disk or obtain a hard copy and fix their signatures or official seal in physical form thereupon and furnish a copy thereof to the Respondents. However, the High Court failed to notice that as problem arose for the first time, the officers of the Sales Tax Department might not have been able to formulate or lay down their own procedure as indicated hereinbefore or otherwise19. For the reasons aforementioned, although we are of the opinion that fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the proviso contained in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act are imperative in character, the authorities may take recourse to the aforementioned procedure in respect of seizure of a hard disk20. We, in the facts and circumstances of the case, think that it is necessary to explain the legal position so that the complications arising out of seizure of hard disk may be avoided in future. The hard disk, however, has already been returned. We have noticed hereinbefore the offer made by the Respondents and, thus, the authorities may now ask the representative of the Respondents - Company to make themselves available and obtain his signatures on the receipt or otherwise of the hard copies; in terms of their undertaking in the counter-affidavit.