9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of search and seizure conducted by income-tax authorities based on an authorization under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance of statutory requirements in issuing warrants of authorization under section 132(13) of the Act read with section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Sufficiency of information for forming the requisite belief by the Commissioner of Income-tax for issuing search warrants. 4. Legality of the search and seizure conducted based on insufficient information. 5. Concerns regarding the practice of issuing general warrants and its historical context. 6. Validity and legality of the final order passed under sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act. 7. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding the return of seized items. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the validity of a search and seizure conducted by income-tax authorities at the petitioner's premises based on an authorization under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner raised concerns about the seizure of cash and jewellery without proper application of mind by the authorized officer, alleging that the seizure was made under extraneous orders from another officer, rendering it illegal. The court found that the seizure was indeed conducted under instructions from a different officer, indicating a lack of independent decision-making by the authorized officer, thus deeming the seizure illegal. 2. The court further analyzed the compliance of statutory requirements in issuing warrants of authorization under section 132(13) of the Act read with section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Citing a previous judgment, the court held that such warrants must specify the grounds of belief and the things for recovery, which had assumed statutory character. The warrant of authorization in this case was found to be non-compliant with these statutory requirements, similar to a previous case, leading to the conclusion that the authorization did not conform to the legal standards. 3. The sufficiency of information for forming the requisite belief by the Commissioner of Income-tax for issuing search warrants was scrutinized by the court. It was noted that the information relied upon by the authorities was insufficient to justify the search and seizure, similar to a previous case. The court found that the Commissioner lacked the necessary information to form the requisite belief for issuing the authorization warrant, rendering the search and seizure illegal and void. 4. The judgment also delved into concerns regarding the historical context and legality of the practice of issuing general warrants. Drawing parallels to historical instances of oppressive practices, the court emphasized the illegality of such warrants and highlighted the importance of adhering to legal standards in authorization processes to prevent abuse of power by the executive. 5. The court concluded by addressing the validity and legality of the final order passed under sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act. Given the findings on the legality of the search and seizure, the court declared the authorization for search as illegal, annulled the final order, and directed the return of the seized items to the petitioner. The respondents were granted a two-week period to comply with the order for the return of the seized articles in the interests of justice.
|
