9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Approval for retention of seized books beyond 180 days under section 132(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Communication of reasons recorded by the authorized officer and approval of the Commissioner to the concerned person under section 132(8). 3. Legality of according approval ex post facto under section 132(8). 4. Obligation to comply with the requirements of recording reasons and according approval before the expiry of 180 days under section 132(8). Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the approval accorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, under section 132(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the retention of seized books beyond 180 days. The petitioner's premises were searched, and books were seized, following which the Commissioner approved the retention of the books long after the expiry of 180 days. The petitioner contended that the approval was illegal as it was not accorded within the stipulated time frame. The court agreed with the petitioner on both counts raised by the counsel. Regarding the first contention, the court emphasized the mandatory nature of section 132(8), which requires the recording of reasons by the authorized officer and approval of the Commissioner for retention beyond 180 days. The court held that the approval accorded after the expiry of 180 days was incompetent and ineffective, granting the petitioner the right to the return of the seized books. The court highlighted the importance of timely compliance with the statutory requirements to prevent arbitrary exercise of power. On the second contention, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the obligation to communicate the reasons recorded under section 132(8) to the concerned person. Failure to communicate the reasons renders the retention beyond 180 days illegal and unauthorized. The court underscored the significance of procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the citizens and prevent abuse of power by the authorities. The judgment cited precedents from other High Courts supporting the view that compliance with the requirements of recording reasons and according approval before the expiry of 180 days is obligatory. It distinguished a contrary opinion from a Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions to uphold the rule of law. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the return of the seized books to the petitioner and awarding costs.
|
