1967 (1) TMI 90 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification and manner of the searches conducted under Section 132.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

Ultra Vires and Unconstitutionality:
The petitioners argued that Section 132 is ultra vires and unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), (f), (g), 21, and 31(1) of the Constitution of India. The court examined whether the section is within the legislative competence of Parliament and if it infringes any fundamental rights.

Power of Search and Seizure:
The court noted that the power of search and seizure is an overriding power of the State for social security and public interest, regulated by law. The court referenced various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and previous Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that such powers are controlled by statutory regulations.

Judicial Precedents:
The court discussed several cases, including M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, which upheld the constitutionality of search and seizure under Section 96 of the CrPC, and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which recognized the principle underlying the American IV Amendment as an essential aspect of ordered liberty.

Taxation Laws and Fundamental Rights:
The court clarified that taxation laws must also pass the test of being in accord with fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The classification under Article 14 must be reasonable, and any restriction under Article 19 must be in the interest of the general public.

Reasonableness of Classification:
Section 132 targets three categories: those who fail to produce documents, those who would not produce documents, and those in possession of undisclosed income or property. The court found that this classification is reasonable and directly related to the objective of preventing tax evasion. The section does not substitute the normal assessment procedure but aids in gathering evidence and securing undisclosed income for tax purposes.

Guidance and Non-Arbitrariness:
The court held that Section 132 provides sufficient guidance to the authorities, requiring a reasonable belief based on information in possession. The use of the term "reason to believe" ensures that the power is exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The section also incorporates safeguards similar to those in the CrPC.

Conclusion on Constitutionality:
The court concluded that Section 132 does not violate Articles 14, 19, 21, or 31 of the Constitution. The restrictions imposed are reasonable, in the interest of the general public, and necessary for preventing tax evasion.

2. Justification and Manner of the Searches Conducted:

Reasonable Belief and Information:
The court examined whether the Commissioner had reasonable belief based on information in his possession before issuing authorizations for search. The Commissioner provided detailed reasons and reports indicating nondisclosure of income and possession of undisclosed wealth by the petitioners.

Judicial Review:
The court emphasized that its role is to ensure that the Commissioner had relevant information and a rational connection between the information and the belief. The sufficiency of the grounds is not for the court to investigate.

Conduct of Searches:
The court analyzed the conduct of the searches, finding no evidence of high-handedness or disregard for the law. The searches were conducted peacefully, and the seized documents were relevant to the proceedings under the Act.

Conclusion on Searches:
The court held that the searches were justified, conducted in compliance with Section 132, and no case of arbitrary or high-handed action was made out.

Final Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the respondents to retain the seized books and papers, directing them to deal with them as per Section 132 of the Income-tax Act. No order as to costs was made.