9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Retention of seized documents beyond 180 days from the date of seizure without proper approval and communication. Analysis: The judgment involves a dispute regarding the retention of seized documents beyond the permissible period of 180 days without the required approval and communication. The petitioners sought mandamus to direct the respondents to return the books of account, records, papers, and documents seized during a search conducted by Income-tax Officers. The central question revolved around whether the retention of the seized documents beyond 180 days from the date of seizure was lawful under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the retention beyond the specified period was illegal as it lacked the necessary approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as mandated by the Act. The court referred to established legal principles and previous judgments to determine the legality of the retention. Citing the case of CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works, it was emphasized that two conditions must be met for extended retention to be permissible: recording reasons in writing and obtaining approval from the Commissioner. Failure to fulfill either condition renders the retention unlawful, entitling the concerned person to the immediate return of the seized documents. The court further highlighted that non-communication of the Commissioner's approval to the concerned party renders the retention illegal. Additionally, the court referenced the case of Survir Enterprises v. CIT, which emphasized that any gap in approval for retention, even for a single day, renders the retention invalid. The judgment in Swastik Gear Ltd. v. ITO reiterated the importance of timely approval and communication, holding that the Department loses the right to retain documents after 180 days from seizure. The court stressed that the Department must ensure the safety of the documents until their lawful return to the owner. Furthermore, the judgment discussed a case under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, highlighting the necessity of recording reasons and obtaining prior approval for the retention of seized documents beyond the specified period. The court concluded that the retention of seized documents beyond the permissible 180 days was illegal in the present case, directing the respondent authority to return all seized documents to the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed with costs, affirming the illegality of the retention beyond the prescribed period and emphasizing the duty of the Department to safeguard the seized documents until their rightful return.
|
