JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. We have heard Dr. Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kantharia, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue on the present proceedings.

2. The urgent relief, which is sought by the petitioner, is in terms of the prayer clause (c)(a) i.e. to unseal the petitioner’s office premises located at Plot No. W-255(A), TTC Industrial Area, Rabale MIDC, Navi Mumbai – 400 701. Dr. Kantawala would submit that respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner of Customs would not have authority and jurisdiction to seal the office premises of the petitioner in exercising powers under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 and that too, without any notice to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by Dr. Kantawala that the respondents purport to undertake investigation in regard to the transactions in respect of goods which were sold by one S.T. Electricals who is the principal importer/supplier. It is also his submission that S.T. Electricals in regard to the actions being taken against it by the Customs Authorities, has moved the proceedings (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10480/2023) before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur and the said proceedings are placed for hearing before the first Bench of the Court tomorrow i.e. 26 July, 2023.

4. Dr. Kantawala would also submit that the petitioner was always ready and willing to co-operate in any investigation which the respondents intend to undertake in regard to any transactions concerning S.T. Electricals. He submits that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not directly purchased goods from S.T. Electricals. Dr. Kantawala would also submit that the petitioner would not have any grievance if the concerned officers of the respondents take search of the office premises and confine their search, to the documents, in regard to the trail of transactions of the goods, which S.T. Electricals has sold. It is his submission that S.T. Electricals has supplied the goods to Pacific who sold the goods to M/s. Mayur Enterprises from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods. It is hence his submission that the respondents need to confine their search in regard to investigation in question, only to such transactions and not in regard to several transactions which have taken place between the petitioner and other suppliers/sellers and/or buyers. In short, Dr. Kantawala would submit that it cannot be a fishing search, it has to be a specific search.

5. Mr. Kantharia is not in a position to justify that the powers under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be utilized to seal the office premises. He would, however, submit that the Customs Officers would have an authority to search the premises and as the petitioner was not cooperating, the premises came to be sealed.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the power to search cannot mean a power to seal. A power to seal the premises is a drastic power. In our opinion, such powers cannot be exercised unless the same is expressly conferred by law. Also the respondents have not supported their contention of such power being vested with the Customs Officers citing any authority on such proposition.

7. As to how Section 105 of the Customs Act has been considered and interpreted by the Supreme Court in upholding its validity can be seen from the observations of the Supreme Court in R. S. Seth Gopikisan Agarwal Vs. R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1298. The Supreme Court interpreting Section 105 of the Customs Act, observed that the object of the section is to make search for the goods liable to be confiscated or the documents secreted in any place which are relevant to any proceeding under the Act. It was observed that the legislative policy reflected in the section is that the search must be in regard to the two categories mentioned therein, namely, goods liable to be con