9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Search and seizure of articles from premises without proper warrants, legality of search warrant utilized, authority to conduct search, validity of seizure of assets, legality of blank warrants of authorization, constitutional validity of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Search and Seizure: The petitioners challenged the search and seizure of articles from their premises on the grounds of lack of proper warrants. The search was conducted at a house where the petitioners resided along with Shri Mulkh Raj Mahajan, advocate. The petitioners pointed out the illegality of searching the portion of the house in their possession without proper warrants. The search resulted in the discovery of cash, household articles, bank accounts, and gold ornaments. The Income-tax Officer served a notice to explain the nature of possession and source of acquisition of the assets seized. Legality of Search Warrant: The petitioners contended that the search warrant utilized for their premises was illegal as there was no information with the respondent to form the requisite belief under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was revealed that blank warrants were placed at the disposal of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which were used for conducting the search. The court held that the search warrant used for the petitioners' premises was illegal, rendering any subsequent action under section 132(5) of the Act invalid. Blank Warrants of Authorization: The court emphasized the importance of a complete and valid warrant of authorization for search. It was noted that general warrants are not lawful as they lack specificity. The court referred to historical cases and legal principles to establish that warrants must specify the person and items to be searched. The court found the blank warrant utilized in this case to be illegal, highlighting the necessity for a valid seizure of assets under section 132(1) for further legal actions. Constitutional Validity of Section 132: The court expressed concerns about the constitutional validity of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding the issuance of warrants of authorization. The court criticized the issuance of a blank warrant by the Commissioner, stating that it undermined the statutory safeguards provided by Parliament. The court compared this situation to historical cases where general warrants were deemed illegal, emphasizing the importance of specific warrants and the satisfaction of the Commissioner for their issuance. Conclusion: The court quashed the search warrant used for the petitioners' premises and directed the return of the seized articles. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the illegality of the search warrant and the lack of statutory belief for the search. The judges unanimously agreed on the illegality of the blank warrant of authorization issued by the Commissioner, highlighting the importance of specificity and legal safeguards in search and seizure operations.
|
