9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to search and seizure of bank locker and notices under Income-tax Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to search and seizure and notices under Income-tax Act The petitioners challenged the search and seizure of their bank locker and the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioners contended that the search and seizure were illegal and contrary to the provisions of the law. They argued that no valid seizure took place as there was no authorization issued in their name. They claimed that the search and seizure, along with the subsequent proceedings under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, were an abuse of the process of law. The petitioners also disputed the ownership of the seized jewelry, stating that it belonged to other individuals as well. The court examined the legality of the search and seizure under section 132(1) of the Act, emphasizing the necessity of satisfaction and authorization before conducting such actions. The petitioners' counsel argued that without proper authorization, the search and seizure were void and should be quashed. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel defended the actions of the authorities, asserting that there were sufficient grounds for the search and seizure. The court analyzed the contentions of both parties to determine the legality of the search and seizure. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition The court addressed the jurisdictional aspect of the case under Article 226 of the Constitution. It examined whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court explained the legal framework regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to issue writs under Article 226. It noted that the cause of action refers to the facts giving rise to a civil litigation. In this case, the court found that the actions leading to the search and seizure primarily occurred in Delhi, not within its territorial jurisdiction. The court observed that the petitioners had no connection with the individuals whose premises were searched, and there was no communication from the income-tax authority in Guwahati regarding the petitioners' locker. Therefore, the court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, rendering the petition not maintainable. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition on the grounds of jurisdictional limitations, as the cause of action did not arise within its territorial jurisdiction. The court also considered the legality of the search and seizure under the Income-tax Act, highlighting the requirement of authorization and satisfaction for such actions.
|
