Allahbad High Court
V.G.OAK,GANGESHWARPRASAD
Seth Brothers, Partnership Firm through Sri Vishwa Nath - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 03/27/1964
INCOME TAX - Search and seizure - Powers of Income-tax Officer - Abuse of power - Search and seizure held to be mala fide and quashed by issuing a writ of mandamus.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were subjected to a search and seizure operation by the Income-tax authorities under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A large number of documents were seized from their premises, including documents belonging to other associated business concerns. The petitioners challenged the legality of the search and seizure, contending that it was mala fide and in abuse of power.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the search and seizure was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 132 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Income-tax Officer did not apply his mind to the relevancy or usefulness of the documents seized for any proceedings under the Act. Many documents were not examined or even looked into. The extent of the seizure was far beyond the limits of Section 132 of the Act. The Court held that the search and seizure was mala fide and quashed the proceeding by issuing a writ of mandamus.
Issues: 1. Whether the search and seizure was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder? 2. Whether the Income-tax Officer applied his mind to the relevancy or usefulness of the documents seized for any proceedings under the Act? 3. Whether the extent of the seizure was far beyond the limits of Section 132 of the Act? 4. Whether the search and seizure was mala fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the search and seizure was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 132 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Income-tax Officer did not apply his mind to the relevancy or usefulness of the documents seized for any proceedings under the Act. Many documents were not examined or even looked into. The extent of the seizure was far beyond the limits of Section 132 of the Act. 2. The Court held that the search and seizure was mala fide and quashed the proceeding by issuing a writ of mandamus.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to return the documents seized to the petitioners.
OAK, J. :- These four connected writ petitions are directed against a proceeding under S. 132 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The same questions of law have been raised in the four cases. Most of the facts are common. It will be therefore, be convenient to dispose of the four writ petitions by a common judgment.
2. At Meerut there is a firm under the name and style 'Seth Brothers'. The firm has been in existence for several years. Its constitution has been changed from time to time. The firm was reconstituted with effect from 2-4-1957. There are at present six partners in the firm. It has been assessed to income-tax. Assessment proceedings for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 are pending before the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Meerut. The Commissioner of Income-tax U.P., Lucknow received reports to the effect that the firm has been evading payment of income-tax. He, therefore, decided to get premises of the firm searched for obtaining documents, which would be useful for assessment of income-tax. On 2-9-1963, letters of authorization were issued in favour of Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Meerut. Under that authority, the two Income-tax Officers searched the premises of M/s Seth Brothers (Shanti Niketan, Civil Lines, Meerut) on the 7th and the 8th of June, 1963. The two officers seized a large number of documents from these premises. The documents so recovered included documents belonging to M/s Seth Brothers and also documents belonging to three other associated business concerns. Since then these documents have been in the custody of the income-tax authorities. These connected writ petitions are directed against the proceedings dated the 7th and the 8th of June, 1963. According to the petitioners, the documents were unlawfully seized from their possession.
3. Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3302 of 1963 is the leading case. M/s Seth Brothers are the petitioners in this case. Nath Brothers Private Limited is a private limited Company. It is the petitioner in Writ No. 3380 of 1963. Seth Bothers Private Limited is another private limited Company. It is the petitioner in Writ No. 3381 of 1963. M/s. Seth Brothers, Meerut, running Cold Storage at Chhibramau, district Farrukbabad and at Patna, are a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It is the petitioner in Writ No. 3382 of 1963. Documents belonging to these four business concerns have been seized by the income-tax authorities.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that S. 132 of the Act violates Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Since these petitions succeed on the ground of abuse of power, it is not necessary to discuss the question of constitutionality of S. 132.
5. S. 132 of the Act deals with powers of search and seizure. Section 132 states :-
"(1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, any Income-tax Officer specially authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf may, -
(i) enter and search any building or place where he has reason to believe that any bocks of account or other documents which in his opinion will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act, may be found, and examine them, if found;
(ii) seize any such books of account or other documents;
(iii) place marks of identification on any such books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom;
(iv) make a note or an inventory of any articles or things found in the course of any search under this Section which in his opinion will be useful for, or relevant, to any proceedings under this Act, -
(2) The provisions of the Criminal P.C., 1898B relating to searches apply, so far as may be, to searches under this Section."
The Central Board of Revenue has framed Rules under the Act. R. 112 deals with search and seizure. Rule 112 is in these terms :-
''(1) The powers of search and seizure under S. 132 shall be exercised in accordance with sub-rr. (2) to (10).
(2) The Commissioner may, for reasons to be rec
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.