JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The petitioner, it is stated, is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in running a duty free shop at Palakkad where various items of imported goods, cosmetics, electronic items, readymade's, stationery, etc., are sold. The business was commenced in a building bearing No. 10/304(1), College Road, Palakkad, from April 9, 2003. The petitioner applied for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on April 7, 2003 evidenced by exhibits P1 and P2 respectively. The registering authority conducted a shop inspection on May 7, 2003 and granted registration on May 8, 2003 with effect from April 7, 2002. The second respondent conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner on May 13, 2003, i.e., within 7 days from the date of inspection conducted by the registering authority for the grant of registration and prepared a mahazar and a shop inspection report (exhibit P6). Subsequently the second respondent issued summons dated August 6, 2003 to the petitioner for production of accounts relating to the business. The petitioner then sent a letter dated August 12, 2003 stating that it would appear that the proposed enquiry related to the shop inspection conducted on May 13, 2003, that copy of the inspection report was not tendered to them and that for production of accounts and documents in relation to the shop inspection a reference to the SIR is essential. The petitioner requested for issuance of certified photocopy of the SIR and connected documents. Accordingly the petitioner was served with a copy of the SIR (exhibit P6) and this was acknowledged by the tax consultant of the petitioner on August 23, 2003. The petitioner thereafter has filed this writ petition on December 3, 2003 seeking to quash the said SIR (exhibit P6). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner commenced business in building No. 10/304(1), College Road, Palakkad, on April 9, 2003, that it applied for CST and KGST registration on April 7, 2003, that the registering authority conducted inspection of the shop room and verified all the accounts and documents on May 7, 2003 and issued the registration certificates on May 9, 2003 with effect from April 7, 2003 after being satisfied of all the requirements. According to the petitioner the inspection conducted on May 13, 2003 within a period of one week from the date of the prior inspection was arbitrary, mala fide and only to harass the petitioner. It is also stated that the said inspection was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of rule 34(12) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. The respondent has filed a counter - affidavit in which the circumstances under which the inspection was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner was explained. It is stated that two other similar businesses, namely, M/s. Maya Bazaar and M/s. New Maya Bazaar were conducted by a partnership firm consisting of A. S. Rajagopal, s/o. late P. A. Subramanian, Sri T. Udayakumar, s/o. Thankaraj and their wives in the said premises without registration, that there were inspection of the business premises and penalty proceedings were also initiated against them. It is stated that the registration was granted without taking note of the aforesaid circumstances. It is also stated that on March 15, 2002 a person by name A. R. Sundaran, VIII/237, Vadavunnur, Alamballam, Kollamkode, filed application and obtained registration in the name of Burmabazar, Kollamkode, that he filed an application on April 5, 2002 for branch registration in building No. 10/304(1) at college Road, Palakkad, that the registering authority found some foul play, that a crime case was registered against the partners of Maya Bazaar, New Maya Bazaar and number one customs duty paid shop, that the branch registration application to the same premises was kept pending and that the dealer by letter dated March 25, 2003 informed that the main business at Chittoor was stopped. It is also stated that the said inspection on May 13, 2003 was conducted on the basis of the authorisation issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam, and the third respondent in compliance with the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam, took all necessary follow up action. It is also stated that the authorisation was shown to the person who was in charge of the shop, who had affixed his signature in the said authorisation. It is also stated that the authorisation was shown to the person who was in charge of the shop, who had affixed his signature in the said authorisation. It is also stated that at 12.15 p.m. the second respondent issued notice to the person-in-charge of the shop to produce the books of account in respect of the business, that he had produced the cash book and sale bills book but the crucial records, viz., the purchase bills were not produced and hence one more notice under section 28(1) was issued to the person-in-charge at 3.20 p.m. requiring production of other books of accounts such as purchase bill, stock inventory, sales bills 1 to 100, etc. and that though the notices were acknowledged by Sheik Dawood, the person-in-charge of the shop he was not responding. It is stated that the petitioner possessed goods worth nearly Rs. 20 lakhs whereas his accounts disclosed purchases only to the tune of below Rs. 6 lakhs. Other matters are also stated. The allegation that Sri Suresh Babu is responsible for the inspection was denied. It is also stated that the inspection was conducted strictly in accordance with law. Sri B. S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner maintained the stand taken in the writ petition and submitted that there is nothing in the counter - affidavit filed by the respondent to connect the petitioner with the earlier business other than the premises and that the registering authority inspected the premises, verified the books and other documents and that it is only after being satisfied of the matters certificates of registration were issued. Senior counsel further submitted that even before the expiry of the time for filing the monthly returns of the business without any provocation the inspection of the business premises was conducted on May 13, 2003 without prior intimation and without any reason for assuming any evasion of tax. Senior Counsel submitted that the inspection was conducted mala fide and that even the basic safeguards are not complied with. The Senior Counsel took me to the provisions of section 28 of the Act and also rule 34(12) of the KGST Rules and submitted that the provisions of rule 34(12) has not been complied with. Senior Counsel submitted that the inspection was conducted mala fide and that even the basic safeguards are not complied with. The Senior Counsel took me to the provisions of section 28 of the Act and also rule 34(12) of the KGST Rules and submitted that the provisions of rule 34(12) has not been complied with. Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) v. P.C. Joseph and Brothers [1994] 94 STC 296 in support. Sri Raju Joseph, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had challenged a shop inspection report which is unprecedented, that the shop inspection was conducted on valid grounds after complying with all the procedural formalities and that the person-in-charge of the shop was available through out, that notice under section 28(1) requiring for production of the books of account and other documents for verification was issued to him twice which were acknowledged by him and that though he had produced certain records he did not produce the purchase bills, stock inventory and bill Nos. 1 to 100 even thereafter. The Special Government Pleader further submitted that no proceedings other than summoning the books of account and other records maintained by the petitioner for verification was initiated pursuant to the inspection conducted on May 13, 2003 and that the appropriate course for the petitioner in such circumstances is to wait for proceedings wherein the materials gathered in the inspection are sought to be relied. The Special Government Pleader further submitted that the details stated in the counter - affidavit filed by the third respondent would disclose the reason for conducting the inspection on May 13, 2003 and that there is no mala fides or arbitrariness in the conduct of the inspection. He further submitted that under section 28(2) of the KGST Act an inspection can be conducted at any point of time and that in the instant case it is only by virtue of the said provisions the second respondent has conducted inspection on May 13, 2003. Section 28 of the KGST Act deals with power to order production of accounts and powers of entry, inspection, etc. Section 28 of the KGST Act deals with power to order production of accounts and powers of entry, inspection, etc. Under sub-section (2) any officer, not below the rank of an assessing authority may, at any reasonable time enter any place of business or any vessel or vehicle of any dealer and inspect any accounts, registers, records or other documents relating to his business and the goods in his possession. Under sub-section (3) if any officer not below the rank of an assessing authority has reason to believe that a dealer is trying to evade any tax under this Act he may, for reasons to be recorded, enter and search the place of business of the dealer. Under sub-section (4) all searches under this section shall, so far as may be, be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under sub-section (5) the officer making the inspections or search may seize such accounts, registers, records or other documents as he considers necessary and on such seizure shall grant the dealer a receipt of the things seized. Under sub-section (6) the accounts, registers, records or other documents seized under sub-section (5) shall not be retained by the officer seizing them beyond a period of thirty days from the date of the seizure except with the permission of the next higher authority, unless they are required for any prosecution under this Act. In the instant case, admittedly there was only an inspection under sub-section (2) of section 28 of the Act. The inspection was conducted by the second respondent who is not below the rank of an assessing officer. There was authorisation from the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam. The third respondent has also instructed the second respondent to conduct inspection. It is seen from the assessment records maintained by the second respondent that there is authorisation, that a notice under section 28(1) of the Act was issued to the person-in-charge of the shop at 12.25 hours and further notice issued at 3.20 p.m. and the same was acknowledged by the person-in-charge of the shop Sri Sheik Dawood. It is seen from the assessment records maintained by the second respondent that there is authorisation, that a notice under section 28(1) of the Act was issued to the person-in-charge of the shop at 12.25 hours and further notice issued at 3.20 p.m. and the same was acknowledged by the person-in-charge of the shop Sri Sheik Dawood. It is further seen that the receipt in respect of the cash book 2003-2004 written up to May 6, 2003 and partly used sale bill book from 101 to 200 used up to 164 taken for further verification was acknowledged by Sri Sheik Dawood at 8 p.m. on May 13, 2003. However, it is seen that since the said Dawood had refused to sign the SIR a copy of the same was left in the cash counter. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any procedural lapses on the part of the respondents in conducting the inspection. The contention of the petitioner is that materials were collected without due compliance of the provisions contained in clause (12) of rule 34 of the KGST Rules. Rule 34(12) of the KGST Rules, it must be noted, provides that if any officer or authorised officer, while inspecting or searching any place finds therein any goods not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts and other records, such officer shall prepare a list of all such goods and get it signed by two respectable witnesses and one copy of such list shall be given or tendered to the dealer or the person-in-charge of the place. The case of the petitioner is that the list of goods prepared was not signed by two respectable witnesses. Here, it must be noted that the signatures of certain persons (Vineeth Kumar, salesman, Anilkumar, Satheesh and Rathish) other than the inspectors are also seen in the inventories. It is not known as to whether the persons Anilkumar, Satheesh and Rathish are respectable witnesses contemplated under rule 34(12) of the Rules. In these circumstances, it would not be possible for this court in these proceedings to say that the inspection was not conducted in accordance with law. It is not known as to whether the persons Anilkumar, Satheesh and Rathish are respectable witnesses contemplated under rule 34(12) of the Rules. In these circumstances, it would not be possible for this court in these proceedings to say that the inspection was not conducted in accordance with law. It is now settled position that even though the materials gathered in illegal search can be relied on for making an assessment or in another proceedings the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) Income-tax, New Delhi [1974] 93 ITR 505 has held that in India, as in England, where the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out. It was held that even though a search and seizure may be in contravention of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, still the material obtained thereby is liable to be used subject to law before the income-tax authorities against the person from whose custody it is seized and, therefore, no writ of prohibition in restraint of such use can be granted. The Madras High Court in M.K. Annamalai Chettiar and Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 687 considered a case where an assessment order based on documents or account books seized under sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 41 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner therein sought to quash the assessment order inasmuch as the same was based on documents or accounts which had been seized illegally. The contention was that since the High Court has held sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 41 of the said Act to be unconstitutional or not competent, search and seizure of the documents were illegal. The court observed that it is one thing to say that search and seizure of documents and account books is illegal and it is quite another to say that the documents so seized cannot legally be used as evidence. It was further observed that the second result does not follow from the first and that whatever means by which the documents have been obtained, their admissibility will depend only on their relevancy and not on the means by which they have been procured. It was further observed that the second result does not follow from the first and that whatever means by which the documents have been obtained, their admissibility will depend only on their relevancy and not on the means by which they have been procured. The court accordingly held that there is no objection, legal or otherwise, to the user made of the documents or account books as evidence, because they have been searched for and seized under provisions of law which do not confer the power to do so or which the court has declared to be in excess of legislative power or ultra vires. The court found support for the above proposition from the decision of the Privy Council in Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] AC 197, where it was held that, "The test to be applied, both in civil and in criminal cases, in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how it is obtained." It is relying on the decision the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal's case [1974] 93 ITR 505, held that even assuming that search and seizure may be in contravention of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, still the material obtained thereby is liable to be used subject to law before the income-tax authorities against the person from whose custody it is seized and, therefore, no writ of prohibition in restraint of such use can be granted. Following the decision of the Supreme Court a division Bench of this court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. C. Prasad [1994] 92 STC 361 rejected a similar contention. In that case the business premises of the respondent - dealer were inspected by the Intelligence Officer, at a time when the dealer was not present. Several discrepancies in stocks were found. A detailed inspection report was drawn up, but the dealer's representative who was present refused to sign the report or acknowledge receipt of a copy of the report. The Intelligence Officer sent a notice to the dealer to produce the accounts. The dealer did not respond. Several discrepancies in stocks were found. A detailed inspection report was drawn up, but the dealer's representative who was present refused to sign the report or acknowledge receipt of a copy of the report. The Intelligence Officer sent a notice to the dealer to produce the accounts. The dealer did not respond. The files were handed over to the Sales Tax Officer, who, after issuing a pre-assessment notice referring to the inspection report and the discrepancies noticed, found that there was large scale suppression, rejected the dealer's accounts and made a best judgment assessment. Though the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the said assessment, on further appeal the Tribunal held in favour of the dealer, directing the assessing authority to accept the accounts of the dealer on the ground that the dealer had not acknowledged the shop inspection report and the shop inspection report was not procured validly to stand the test of law since it was not prepared in the presence of the dealer. The Division Bench relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, and the Madras High Court mentioned above and another decision of a division Bench of this court held that even if a search and seizure of documents or account books is illegal, the documents or materials obtained in such search or seizure can be looked into and relied on for the purpose of making the assessment. They have probative value. They are public documents prepared by the public officer in the performance of his official duties. Law presumes that the proceedings so recorded are accurate and were made as reflected in the documents. It is certainly open to a party, who is aggrieved by the said record, to assail the same in appropriate proceedings and lead evidence and demonstrate that the official record so prepared is unreliable or cannot be relied on. But the said official record can be discarded only for cogent, valid and proper reasons and not in a light-hearted manner. It is seen from para 5 of the said decision that a contention was taken by the dealer that the inspection report cannot be relied on in the absence of the signature of the dealer, that no independent witness has vouchsafed the accuracy of the proceedings and that it has not been proved that the inspection was done in accordance with law by the same was not countenanced. This position was applied by a learned single Judge in P. Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala [1995] 99 STC 473 (Ker); [1995] ILR 92 (Ker) where it is stated that the matter is concluded by the decision in C. Prasad [1994] 92 STC 361 (Ker) where relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal's case [1974] 93 ITR 505, it was held that even if the search and seizure were illegal, the documents or materials obtained on the search or seizure could be looked into and relied on for the purpose of making the assessment. Another division Bench of this court in New Street Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1978] 41 STC 36 held that even if a search and seizure made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, should be regarded as illegal, the materials seized could still be looked into and relied upon for the purpose of making assessment. As against this decision the petitioner had relied on the decision of another division Bench of this court in Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) v. P.C. Joseph and Brothers [1994] 94 STC 296. In that case the question was as to whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the information gathered during the shop inspection conducted on June 4, 1973, cannot be relied upon by the assessing authority on the ground that assessee had not endorsed the shop inspection report. The division Bench in that context observed that "it is the common case of the parties that neither a statement of facts nor a list containing the particulars of the details collected during inspection had been given to the assessee. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the officer had prepared a list of all such goods which were not accounted for and found in the business premises of the assessee and a copy given to the assessee in terms of clause (12) of rule 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules". The Division Bench further observed thus : "It is in this background the issues arising for consideration require to be considered. We do agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue that there is no legal bar in the assessing authority relying upon the materials collected during inspection even if the inspection is regarded as illegal. The Division Bench further observed thus : "It is in this background the issues arising for consideration require to be considered. We do agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue that there is no legal bar in the assessing authority relying upon the materials collected during inspection even if the inspection is regarded as illegal. But the question here is can the materials collected without due compliance with the provisions contained in clause (12) of rule 34 be relied upon by the assessing authority to make an assessment. It should in this connection be remembered that this sub-clause in fact is introduced with the intention of safeguarding the interest of the assessee which otherwise will get prejudiced on the authority concerned exercising its power to conduct the inspection arbitrarily." The division Bench ultimately held that the materials relied upon by the assessing authority to make the assessment are materials collected without complying with the procedure prescribed under clauses (12) of rule 34. If that be the position, the assessment in dispute has rightly been found by the Appellate Tribunal as an assessment not made in accordance with law. I do not propose to comment on the above view of the division Bench as to whether this decision accords with the view taken by the Supreme Court and of this court mentioned earlier. As already observed this is not a case for interference with the SIR (exhibit P6) prepared by the second respondent at this stage. As observed in the various decisions discussed above it is for the party aggrieved by the SIR prepared by the second respondent to object to the reliance of the materials gathered in the inspection conducted on May 13, 2003 evidenced by the SIR when proceedings by way of assessment or penalty are initiated by the authorities under the Act relying on such SIR. When such objections are raised it is for the concerned authority to consider the same in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and of this court including the decision relied on by the petitioner and to take a decision. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all objections in regard to the reliance of the exhibit P6 on all grounds including the grounds taken in this writ petition in appropriate proceedings this writ petition is dismissed.