Case Law Details
Thomas Mathew Vs The State Tax Officer (IB) (Kerala High Court)
While refusing to consider the request of the petitioners, the Proper Officer failed to state any reason. The officer had not mentioned that giving copy of the statements would cause prejudice to the investigation. The request of the petitioners for issuing copies of statements already recorded by the investigating officer, as mentioned earlier was refused to be considered. There is a marked distinction between refusing to consider and rejecting an application for reasons.
The Proper Officer ought to have considered the request and either granted copies of the statements or rejected such requests for reasons to be recorded, rather than avoiding consideration of such request.
The distinction sought to be canvassed on the basis of a document seized under section 67(5) of the Act and a statement given as evidence pursuant to a summons under section 70 of the Act, though impressive at first blush, may not be of any avail to the petitioners on a deeper consideration. Section 70 of the Act relates to the power to summon persons to give evidence. By the legislative reference in section 70 of the Act, the power to summon persons or produce documents can be treated as akin to the power in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’). It is only the power that is referable to the CPC.
Order XVI of the CPC deals with power to summon witnesses to give evidence or for production of documents. By conferring the power of summoning a witnesses to give evidence or to produce a document as provided in Order XVI of the CPC, the nature or character of the investigation or inquiry being conducted under Chapter XIV of the Act will not be changed. The power to summon or produce a document is distinct from the nature of proceedings conducted. Merely because the source of power to summon witnesses and power to direct production of documents is referable to CPC, that does not alter the nature of investigation or inquiry being conducted. It remains to be an investigation or inquiry. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners on the basis of section 70 of the Act is rejected.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
