JOSHI, J.- The above four writ petitions have come before us in connection with disposal of two applications in each case, one moved by the petitioner under O. 6 r. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the writ petition and another on behalf of Commissioner of Income-tax, hereinafter referred to as the C. I. T. under sec. 151 C P. C. for dismissing all the four writ petitions as having become infructuous.

2. Excepting that; the articles recovered from each of the petitioners are different the facts leading to all the four writ petitions and prayers made therein are substantially similar. In each of the petitions it has been prayed that search and seizure of the goods undertaken by the officers of Income-tax Department were not under any warrant of authorisation under Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules and, therefore, the entire seizure of the goods from the petitioner was without the authority of law. It was further prayed that a declaration be issued to the effect that sec. 132 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred the Act did not authorise the personal search of any person or seizure of any property in the hands or in the pocket of such person. It was also prayed that a declaration be issued that Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules does not authorise any Income-tax Officer to take search of the person and seizure of goods from him unless a search warrant was issued against him or unless he was an agent of the person guilty of tax evasion. It was further prayed that search and seizure of the goods and all the proceedings taken by the respondents on the 1st August, 1972, be quashed. The petitioner also prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings or to take any assessment under sec. 132(5) of the Act. Lastly it was prayed that the respondents be directed to return the goods seized from the petitioner on 1-8-1972. The above mentioned prayers were made mainly on the grounds: (1) that the search warrants authorised the respondents to take search of the business premises of Messrs Shri Narain Ganesh Narain and to seize the valuable articles which represented wholly or partly the income or property which remained undisclosed by the said firm for the purposes of the Act; (ii) that the respondents were not authorised to make a search of the petitioner and much less to seize the goods from him; (iii) that the provisions of sec. 132 could not be applied to the case of the petitioner; (iv) that the petitioner was prepared to get the verification of the articles seized from him but no opportunity was given to him for that purpose; (v) that the respondent Income-tax Officer is going to estimate the undisclosed income of the petitioner in a summary manner to the goods seized from the petitioner and to get the entire amount of the property for the purposes of satisfying the alleged tax liability.

3. Along with the writ petition each of the four writ petitioners moved a stay application alleging that it was apprehended that the Income-tax Officer was going to treat all his property as his undisclosed income and make a summary assessment order which was likely to adversely affect the petitioner. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court should issue an ad interim order restraining the respondents not to proceed with the assessment under sec. 132(v) of the Act. This Court having regard to the facts and circumstances pointed out in the writ petition called for Mr. S.C. Bhandari, counsel for the Revenue, on 11-10-1972 to take notice of the stay application and the case was posted for orders on 20-10-1972 as prayed for by counsel for both sides. On 20-10-1972 the Department submitted a reply to the stay application supported by an affidavit. In the reply it was alleged that the petitioner completely suppressed the most important fact that jewellery in his possession was recovered in pursuance of authorised warrant of search and seizure. In support of this allegation the respondents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document