Through this Intra Court Appeal, the appellant/department has challenged the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers, whereby while allowing the constitutional petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the appellant-department was directed to retain duplicate copies of the electronic data and other record which it has taken into custody and return the original to Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 so that they can resume their business activities in normal course which have been hampered.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-department states that data and documents collected from office of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is evidence against them to proceed further and in case any criminal case is made out against them, the original documents and data have to be produced in evidence.
3. Although the appellant-department could in terms of Sections 37 and 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 require Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce record or seize the same but could not retain and detain the said documents indefinitely for hampering the business of the said respondents. Therefore, learned Single Judge in Chambers was justified to direct the appellant-department to return the data after retaining duplicate copies of the same. The said findings of the learned Single Judge in Chambers is based on proper appreciation of the record and well founded, warranting no interference.
4. As regards the claim of the appellant-department that data is required for the purpose of criminally prosecuting against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, suffice it to say that learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any specific document which was required to be produced in evidence against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant-department cannot be allowed fishing inquiry by retaining the entire documents with them which would adversely affect the business of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the absence of any specific mention of document, there is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers.
5. For what has been discussed above, this appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed.