P.S. Subramaniam Chettiar vs R. Sivakami

Pratap Singh, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed on 7.1.1993 on a memo in R.C.O.P. No. 182 of 1989 on

the file of the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore.

Short facts are: The respondent had filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of

requirement of the building for the use of her son Nandakumar, who is said to be partner in Mahalakshmi Auto Parts. During the pendency of the

petition, the revision petitioner had filed an interlocutory application u/s 151 of the CPC praying for permitting him to examine the Assistant

Commercial Tax Officer, N.H. Road Circle, Coimbatore and for a direction for production of documents by him. Evidently, after receipt of

summons, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer appeared in Court and filed a memo objecting to the production of documents taking shelter u/s

57 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act""). On that memo learned Rent Controller had passed an

order accepting the objections taken by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, holding that the documents sought to be produced was a privileged

document and that cannot be produced in court. Aggrieved by that order passed on the memo, the tenant in the court below has come forward

with this revision petition.

Mr. B. Ramamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that to rebut the claim made by the landlady that the premises is

required for the purpose of running the business of her son on the ground that the land lady''s son is not a partner in the firm, the tenant wants the

production of the partnership deed which was produced in the proceedings before the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, the tenant filed a petition

u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would further submit that rejection of this claim by the court below relying upon Section 57(2) (iv) of

the Act, is erroneous and that the court below ought to have rejected the memo filed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and ordered

production of the document.

Per contra, Mr. V. Nicholas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that neither in the affidavit filed in the revision petition

nor in the petition filed in the revision petition he had made any mention of this deed of partnership, in which, according to the revision petitioner the

son of the respondent was not a partner and as such, the present contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned Counsel on both sides. For considering the submissions, the affidavit filed in

support of the application need be referred to. In paragraph 2 he has stated that he may be permitted to examine the Assistant Commissioner,

Assistant Commercial Tax Office, N.H. Road Circle, Coimbatore as a witness. In paragraph 3 he has stated that he may be permitted to examine

the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, N.H. Road Circle, Coimbatore. Thus, he had prayed for permission to examine the Assistant Commercial

Tax Officer and also for production of the documents and adduce evidence. The prayer in the petition filed u/s 151 of the CPC reads as follows:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit

the petitioner to examine the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, N.H. Road Circle, Coimbatore and also produce the documents and adduce the

evidence before this Hon''ble Court and pass necessary orders.

Not Here, in the affidavit it is stated that there was a deed of partnership in which Nandakumar was not shown as a partner of Mahalakshmi Auto

Parts. Neither the petitioner has prayed for production of such document.

The allegations in the affidavit are vague. The prayer sought for is equally vague. The prayer does not specify that this partnership deed is the

document which is sought to be produced. The prayer reads as if all the documents need production. It is not shown in the affidavit as to how all

the documents in that proceedings are relevant. Unless, the entire file is relevant for the purpose of this case, the entire file cannot be summoned.

On the above facts, I am unable to find fault with the court below for rejecting the revision petitioner''s claim.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the allegations are not precise and point to this particular document, v/''z., the deed

of partnership and though in the petition it is not specifically made clear that this deed of partnership need production, it has been made clear

before the Rent Controller, that only this deed need be produced and that was reflected in the order of the Court below, accepting the objection

taken by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. He would submit that this document alone was required, the order of the court below may be set

aside as to the extent that this deed of partnership alone should be produced. I am unable to accept this submission in view of the vague allegations

in the affidavit and in view of want of such specific prayer in the petition.

I shall now pass on to consider the question as to whether the civil court is precluded from sending for document produced before the sales tax

authorities. To consider this submission, Sections 57(1) and 57(2)(iv) of the Act need extraction and they read as follows:

Prohibition of disclosure of particulars produced before sales tax authorities: (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished

or accounts (registers, records) or documents produced under the provision of this Act or in any evidence given or affidavit or deposition made, in

the course of any proceeding under this Act or in any record of any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of

this Act shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed.

(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply to the disclosure of any such particulars.

(iv) to a civil court in any suit to which the Government are party and which relates to any matter arising out of any proceeding under this Act: or

In Parvathi Ammal v. Mari Reddiar and Ors. (1966)1 M.L.J. 162, this very question as to whether the documents produced before the sales tax

authorities can be directed to be produced before the court came up for consideration. Veeraswami, J. (as he then was) had an occasion to

consider the impact of Sections 57(1) and 57(2) of the Act with regard to this objection. After considering both the section learned Judge had held

as follows:

It is true that Clause (iv) of Sub-section (2) is to the effect that Sub-section (1) will not apply to disclosure of the particulars to a civil court in a suit

to which the Government are party provided that it relates to a matter arising out of any proceeding under the Act. But Sub-section (2) cannot be

read as in any way enlarging the scope of Sub-section (1) which has to be decided on the language employed by the Act.

As there is no prohibition in Sub-section (1) of Section 57 against courts calling for records of the type mentioned in the sub-section there should

be no objection to marking in evidence such documents as the court may think fit.

It may be that Section 57(1) is intended to protect assesses by treating the particulars contained in a specified document as confidential. But his

privilege appears to be only a qualified one and is not absolute.

I am in total agreement with the view expressed by Veeraswami, J. (as he then was). This ruling is binding on the court below. Following this ruling,

the court below ought to have allowed the petition, provided the documents sent for are relevant and necessary for considering the dispute

between the parties in the petition. Though this ruling was cited, the court below had not accepted it, but had chosen to follow the decision in

Marikar (Motors) Limited v. Sales Tax Officer (1973) 3 S.T.C. 201 of the Kerala High Court. When there is a ruling of this Court, the court

below was wrong in not following the same. I am clear that Sections 57(1) and 57(2)(iv) of the Act would not stand in the way of a civil court to

send for the document filed in a proceeding before the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in a proceeding under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax

Act. Though the court below was wrong in holding that the document cannot be sent for, yet, I do not set aside the order of the court below for

the reason that the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the prayer in the petition do not point out this deed of partnership. Consequently, this

civil revision petition has to necessarily fail. This will not preclude the petitioner from filing a petition afresh, making out necessary allegations for

production of the relevant documents and in case such a petition is filed, the court below shall decide it on merits.

With this observation, this civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.