9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The legality of search and seizure conducted under a warrant of authorisation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the validity of the warrant authorising the search. Judgment Summary: In the case involving Civil Writs Nos. 968, 969, 4894, and 4895 of 1975, the petitioners challenged the search and seizure conducted under a warrant of authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that the search was illegal as the Commissioner of Income-tax did not have the necessary statutory belief to authorize the search. A previous judgment by a Division Bench of the court had quashed a similar warrant of authorisation, declaring the search illegal due to the absence of proper authorization based on statutory belief. The Division Bench held that the issuance of general warrants or warrants lacking specific details, such as the name of the person whose premises were to be searched, was illegal. It was also ruled that when the basis for action u/s 132(1) of the Act was missing, no enquiry u/s 132(5) could be conducted. Consequently, the cash and jewellery seized during the search were ordered to be returned. The court considered arguments presented by the revenue's counsel regarding previous decisions but found them distinguishable. Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Gemini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer, the court upheld the decision of the Division Bench in quashing the warrant of authorisation. The court allowed the petitions, quashed the warrant of authorisation, and ordered the return of money, jewellery, and other items seized from the petitioners' possession within three weeks.
|
