JUDGMENT SUBRAMONIAN POTI, J. - The petitioner runs a match factory at Quilon under the name Janatha Industries and has also sales depots in other places. The place of business of the petitioner at Quilon was inspected by the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon, on 25th January, 1969, and on such inspection, he took certain ledgers and records from the business premises for verification. These were taken under receipt exhibit P-1. Later, on 5th February, 1969, he made a visit to the sales depot of the petitioner at Trivandrum and took from that place certain sales books for verification. A receipt was issued to the man in-charge of the depot and copy of that receipt is exhibit P-2. According to the petitioner, the books so taken by the first respondent are very necessary for running the business of the petitioner, and it is particularly mentioned that some of the records contain mention of credit transactions, reference to which is necessary for collecting amounts from the customers. It is also said that these books are necessary for the purpose of income-tax. The petitioner seems to have made requests to the first respondent to return the books. A registered letter was sent on 23rd September, 1970, requesting return of books and it is said that it was so sent because requests made earlier had been turned down. To this request the first respondent sent a reply on 5th October, 1970, refusing to return the books stating that the books are retained for prosecution purposes. A copy of that reply is exhibit P-4. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of the lapse of two years the books were not returned and no steps for prosecution have been taken. In these circumstances, he seeks return of the books and appropriate directions from this court in that behalf. 2. Section 28(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), enables officers authorised in that behalf by Government to inspect at all reasonable times, all accounts, registers and other documents maintained by a dealer and the goods in his possession and his office, shops, godowns, vessels or vehicles. 2. Section 28(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), enables officers authorised in that behalf by Government to inspect at all reasonable times, all accounts, registers and other documents maintained by a dealer and the goods in his possession and his office, shops, godowns, vessels or vehicles. Sub-section (3)(a) runs as follows : "(3)(a) If any officer not below the rank of an assessing authority has reason to suspect that any dealer it attempting to evade payment of any tax or fee due from him under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers and documents of the dealer as he may consider necessary and shall grant a receipt for the same. The officer who seizes such accounts, registers or documents shall return them within thirty days from the date of seizure unless they are required for a prosecution." Rule 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, relate to the procedure concerning search and seizure of documents. Search has to be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The provision relating to seizure is contained in sub-rule (2) of rule 34 and it reads thus : "(2) If on search, such officer finds any accounts, registers or other documents which he has reason to suspect that the dealer is maintaining with a view to evading the payment of any tax or fee due from him under the Act, he shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers and documents of the dealer as may be necessary and shall give the dealer a receipt for the same. The accounts and registers so seized shall be returned to the dealer within thirty days from the date of seizure unless they are required for a prosecution." 3. It is therefore evident that the authorised officer can seize any documents, accounts, registers or any other documents of a dealer, if on a search made by him, he finds such accounts, registers or documents which he has reason to suspect that the dealer is maintaining with a view to evade any payment of tax and this he can do only for recorded reasons in writing. There is controversy in this case as to whether these requirements are satisfied in the present case. There is controversy in this case as to whether these requirements are satisfied in the present case. It is the petitioner's case that the seizure has been made without finding sufficient reason to suspect that there has been evasion of the tax. But I do not proceed to resolve that controversy here as it requires an appreciation of the facts of the case, but having regard to the indifferent manner in which the first respondent has conducted himself in the matter of retaining the books of account it is necessary for me to indicate here that a seizure must necessarily be in accordance with the provisions of section 28(3) read with rule 34(2) and if any seizure is shown to be not made regularly in the manner prescribed, the action of the authority who effects such seizure is liable to be successfully attacked. 4. Section 28(3) as well as rule 34(2) make it quite clear that the retention of the books and other documents can be only for 30 days. The only exception to this is in a case where the books, documents or registers are required for a prosecution. This necessarily presupposes that the decision as to whether those books are so required has to be reached within 30 days and since such a decision would visit consequence of a grave nature on the party to whom these belong it must be a decision reached after considering all the materials available to the officer concerned. I am saying this because I feel the necessity of emphasising that in every case where books are retained beyond 30 days it is not sufficient if the officer concerned contends that these are required for prosecution and therefore were so retained. The good faith of the authority in regard to such retention is open to very serious challenge when, for years together, no action by way of prosecution is being taken. It is more so when such conduct is challenged before this court and in answer no materials are disclosed as to why there has been such inordinate delay. The case before me is an instance where those circumstances do exist. The books were taken in January and February, 1969. The written demand for return of the books was made as early as in October, 1970. By that time nearly two years had passed after the recovery of the books. The case before me is an instance where those circumstances do exist. The books were taken in January and February, 1969. The written demand for return of the books was made as early as in October, 1970. By that time nearly two years had passed after the recovery of the books. Certainly it was time enough by then for the authority concerned to decide whether prosecution should be taken or not. I must state here that when the section requires return of the books within 30 days unless otherwise required for prosecution it goes without saying that the authority not only should decide upon the question whether prosecution is necessary within the said period of 30 days but should further take such prosecution proceedings within a reasonable time, failing which the authority has got a duty to return the books to the person from whom it is taken. If the authority retains such books long after the period of the expiry of 30 days without taking proceedings for prosecution it would be an abuse of the power vested in such authority and the court will not be slow to interfere in such matters. In the case before me, there is certainly justification for this court to feel that the retention for such an inordinately long period has been without any justification. In a matter of this nature when the matter comes to this court, I would have expected the first respondent at least to make an attempt to explain the circumstances which compelled him to delay the prosecution for this long period of three years and more. That having not been done and more than a year having been passed after written demand was made by the petitioner for return of the books, I think this is a case where I should interfere and direct the return of the books. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the prosecution is likely to be launched very shortly and therefore any such return would do considerable harm to the interests of the department. Taking note of this fact, I would give as a last chance two weeks from this date to the first respondent to launch prosecution, if he decides upon it. If within that period no prosecution is launched the books must necessarily be returned forthwith to the petitioner. Taking note of this fact, I would give as a last chance two weeks from this date to the first respondent to launch prosecution, if he decides upon it. If within that period no prosecution is launched the books must necessarily be returned forthwith to the petitioner. In view of what I have pointed out above as to the abuse of the jurisdiction of the first respondent, I must necessarily hold that the petitioner is entitled to his costs in this petition and that is awarded to the petitioner as against the first respondent. A carbon copy of this judgment will be issued to the first respondent. [The judgment of V. KHALID, J., of the Kerala High Court in Arippayil Mohammed v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore (O.P. No. 2073 of 1974), delivered on 9th August, 1974, is printed below :-] ARIPPAYIL MOHAMMED v. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX, CANNANORE, AND OTHERS KHALID, J. - The petitioner, a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, prays for an appropriate order from this court directing the first respondent, Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, to return the books of account and other allied documents seized by him. The officers attached to the first respondent inspected the petitioner's business place on 9th May, 1973. Certain slips were seized by the intelligence squad and they were taken into custody, however, without recording any reason and without acknowledging receipt for the seizure of such slips. Subsequently, notices were issued to the petitioner for production of his regular books of account. The petitioner's representative produced the books of account for the year 1973-74 before the first respondent on 6th July, 1973. During the course of scrutiny of these books, these books were sized by the officer and orders, exhibits P-1 and P-2, were passed. Exhibits P-3 and P-4 receipts evidence the seizure. The apparent reason given out for such seizure is, there is some variation in the stocks. 2. The petitioner has an oil-mill and flour-mill and also coconut business. Notices were given to him asking him whether he was willing to compound the offences committed by him. These notices are exhibits P-5 and P-6. The apparent reason given out for such seizure is, there is some variation in the stocks. 2. The petitioner has an oil-mill and flour-mill and also coconut business. Notices were given to him asking him whether he was willing to compound the offences committed by him. These notices are exhibits P-5 and P-6. The petitioner through his representative sent letters exhibits P-7 and P-8 requesting the first respondent to give him an opportunity to peruse the books of account and other statements. This request was turned down. Exhibits P-9 and P-10 notices were also issued regarding the oil and flour mills calling upon the petitioner to compound the offences. Though the account books were seized on 6th July, 1973, the first respondent has not initiated any prosecution against the petitioner, nor has he though it necessary to return the books seized. Repeated requests for return of the books having proved futile, a notice was caused to be sent to the first respondent through an Advocate for return of the books on 17th April, 1974. The notices are marked as exhibits P-11 and P-12. Exhibits P-13 and P-14 are the replies of the first respondent, which stated that the books cannot be returned as they are needed for the prosecution. Hence this petition for a direction to the first respondent to return the books to the petitioner. 3. I have detailed above the averments in the petition. The petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 6268 of 1974 for an interim direction for return of the six account slips seized on 9th May, 1973, and two sets of stock and kurippu books for the year 1973-74 seized on 6th July, 1973. Notice was issued on the C.M.P. and the O.P. itself was directs to be heard. 4. The petitioner's contention is that the withholding of the books by the respondents is without justification. The original petition itself was filed on 2nd May, 1974. Notice of the petition was sent on 6th May, 1974, and the respondents were served. In view of the fact that the prayer in the O.P. was only for return of the books seized, I thought the petition itself could be disposed of and hence the C.M.P. was posted to 25th July, 1974. The O.P. was directed to be posted to 30th July, 1974, at the top of the list. In view of the fact that the prayer in the O.P. was only for return of the books seized, I thought the petition itself could be disposed of and hence the C.M.P. was posted to 25th July, 1974. The O.P. was directed to be posted to 30th July, 1974, at the top of the list. On 30th July, 1974, the O.P. was posted for disposal on 31st July, 1974. When the O.P. came for hearing on 1st August, 1974, the Government Pleader showed me a telegram by an officer which read that a prosecution had already been launched in the Tellicherry Court and the books of account have been produced along with the complaint in that court. The Government Pleader therefore submitted that under these circumstances the books of account cannot be handed over to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner's contention is that the conduct of the officers concerned in this case is highly objectionable. From July, 1973, to 31st July, 1974, no steps were taken to launch any prosecution against the petitioner. The books of account seized were current books which were needed for completing the accounts. Notices issued to the petitioner asking whether he was willing to compound the offences are also not proper since he had not offered to compound the offences. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any offences and, therefore, no occasion arises for him to compound the offences. These notices, according to him, are only clever moves by the officers concerned to trap him for two reasons : (1) to save face of the officers for their irregular acts, and (2) to use the composition for future assessments at rates to be decided by them. I do no think it necessary to go into the details of the allegations made by the petitioner's counsel in this case. 6. The important point to be decided is, whether the officers concerned were justified in withholding the books of account for such a long time without initiating any prosecution. When the petitioner declined to compound the offence, the officers could have, if they thought it necessary, initiated prosecution without delay. It is difficult to justify the conduct of the officers concerned in this case. In fairness, the officers concerned should have expeditiously moved in the matter and either launched a prosecution or returned the books. When the petitioner declined to compound the offence, the officers could have, if they thought it necessary, initiated prosecution without delay. It is difficult to justify the conduct of the officers concerned in this case. In fairness, the officers concerned should have expeditiously moved in the matter and either launched a prosecution or returned the books. Withholding of books of account of a dealer will cause serious hardship to him and unless it is absolutely necessary, the Sales Tax Officers should not unnecessarily keep the books of account of dealers with them. 7. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in two recent cases. In a Division Bench case reported in Raja Rice and Flour Mills v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [[1973] 32 S.T.C. 131 at 137; 1973 K.L.T. 694 at 699], this court observed as follows : "7. The question then is what is the scope and ambit of the power under section 28(3)(a) of the Sales Tax Act. The section does not give power to retain the documents for any length of time. The omission to mention in the section a specific period for which the documents could be retained cannot be interpreted to mean that they can be retained for any length of time. The section only enables the safeguarding of the interests of the State in the collection of tax and for the prosecution of those who are believed to have committed offences under the Act. This is in the interest of the general public. This interest must not wipe out the personal rights and interests of a person from whom the documents are taken. The two must be reconciled. If the production, when wanted, of these records in courts can be ensured without retaining them with the Sales Tax Officer or if certified copies of these records will satisfy the purpose, it must be understood that these records are not necessary for the purpose of prosecution. The records can be retained or can be said to be required for the purpose of prosecution only if the prosecution proceedings could not be continued or proceeded with without these records being retained by the Sales Tax Officer. That may happen if the ownership of the records and handwriting of the entries is a matter in dispute. It is difficult to exhaust the list of cases of this nature. That may happen if the ownership of the records and handwriting of the entries is a matter in dispute. It is difficult to exhaust the list of cases of this nature. It is reasonable to hold that if the requirement of prosecution can be met without these records being retained by the Sales Tax Officer, the section can be understood as only conferring such power in the Sales Tax Officer ........... In the same manner, the latter part of section 28(3)(a) of the Sales Tax Act should be understood to mean only that the retention of the original records is necessary if they are to be used as material objects to prove the commission of the offence or where the authenticity or the handwriting of the entries will be a matter which will have to be gone into in the prosecution proceedings. If the genuineness of the books seized are not matters in dispute and the dealer agrees to certify that the records seized belong to him and authenticated copies are sufficient to enable the prosecution to proceed with the criminal proceedings, normally that alone will be deemed necessary and such copies must be taken be the authorities and the originals returned to the dealers on their certifying the copies as true copies of the originals. The power under section 28(3)(a) can only be understood in this way." In Mubarak Stores v. Intelligence Officer [[1974] 33 S.T.C. 526; 1974 K.L.T. 327], Isaac, J., in a case almost identical with the case on hand, allowed the writ petition under similar circumstances. In that case, the learned Judge commented upon the conduct of the tax authorities in keeping the account books to themselves. The learned Judge observed as follows : "Seizure and retention of a dealer's books of account by an officer are serious inroads into his fundamental rights. But that is permitted by the statutory provision in section 28(3)(a) in the interest of the general public under certain special circumstances ........ Construing the above provision in this background, it appears that the words 'required for a prosecution' can means only 'required for an existing prosecution'. It may include a prosecution existing at the time of the seizure and also one which the authority may institute within the period of 30 days for which he is entitled to retain the records ........ Construing the above provision in this background, it appears that the words 'required for a prosecution' can means only 'required for an existing prosecution'. It may include a prosecution existing at the time of the seizure and also one which the authority may institute within the period of 30 days for which he is entitled to retain the records ........ Therefore the retention of the records after the period of 30 days from the date of their seizure in anticipation of a prosecution or a contemplated prosecution is not warranted by section 28(3)(a)." In this case, I am not satisfied that the respondents have acted with propriety in keeping the books to themselves for such a long time and launching the prosecution on the eve of the hearing of the writ petition and producing the books in court. The books are valuable documents which the dealer needs for day-to-day purposes. The respondents have not been able to substantiate any ground to justify their action in keeping the books for such a long time. Even if the books were necessary for production, the relevant extracts should have been produced along with the complaint and steps should have been taken to get the books produced in court either by getting a direction to the accused to produce the books or by the exercise of the power of seizure at the appropriate time by the officers concerned. In the result, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to deliver the slips and books seized from the petitioner to him within one month from today. There will be no order as to costs.