9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narain, Income-tax Officer, Jaunpur, Sri M.L. Narang, Inspector of Incometax, Jaunpur, and four persons-two from the Sales Tax Department and two from the Income-tax Department-to accompany him on the raid, and seized the account books of different parties and brought not only the books to his office, but also brought the petitioner himself to his office. He did not issue any receipt for the books seized by him, and in spite of repeated requests, and the expiry of 90 days on the 16th August, 1961, did not return the account books seized from the custody of the petitioner. This writ petition was moved before me on the 29th August, 1961, and as it appeared to me that the respondent had acted in complete defiance of the statute, I made the following orders: "Admit. Issue notice. The respondent is directed to furnish the petitioner with a receipt of the books seized and taken away by him. The learned Standing Counsel is granted 10 days' time to show cause why the respondent should not be directed to return the books, The petition will be listed for orders on the expiry of ten days." On the 8th September, 1961, when the writ petition came up for heating before me, a counter-affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State Government. It has already been seen that it has not been stated that the respondent was so authorized. Further, seizure can be made by such officer only if he "has reasonable grounds for believing that any dealer is trying to evade liability for tax or other dues under the Act," and that "anything necessary for the purposes of investigation into his liability may be found in any account............. " The averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent fall far short of these requirements, and do not disclose (1) that he had any "reasonable ground" for believing, (2) "that any particular dealer", (3) "was trying to evade liability for tax". He merely banked upon a possibility. It follows that the raid made by him was wholly unwarranted by the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (5) goes on to impose a mandatory duty that the officer seizing the account etc. "shall forthwith grant a receipt for the same". No request is necessary for the grant of a receipt by the persons from whose custody account books are seized. It is a duty cast upon the officer himself and he has to act suo motu in the matter, This was not done. The petitioner brought thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r forthwith, but to ask the petitioner to accompany him to his office. The petitioner seems to have accompanied him to his office in the hope that he will get a receipt there. The respondent succeeded in thus luring the petitioner to his office, and there, in his own words, he asked the petitioner to make a statement and even to have "persuaded the petitioner to make a statement". It appears that on account of the refusal of the petitioner to make a statement, the receipt was withheld from the petitioner, even though it had already been prepared and signed. If the memorandum is genuine, the persuasion was done jointly by the respondent and the Income-tax Officer. It is not difficult to imagine, in the context, the exact significance of this "joint persuasion", both by the respondent and the Income-tax Officer. It appears to have been nothing else but coercion. There is no warrant at all in section 13 for recording the statement of any person when the books of a dealer are seized. After the seizure, the officer "shall be bound to return the books to the person from whose custody they were seized within a period of 90 days from the date of such seizure." This again casts a mandator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition in which the Sales Tax Officer found himself by reason of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in this Court and is not a contemporaneous document. In any case any one possessing even the meanest intelligence could be in no doubt that the request of a friendly officer could not override the statutory mandate. The respondent has made a patently untenable excuse. He has stated in paragraph 18 of his counter-affidavit as follows: "The deponent was under the impression that the letter issued by the Income-tax Officer, copy of which is annexure 2 to this affidavit amounted to seizure of books by the Income-tax Officer." He appears to have been driven to adopt this plea in sheer desperation. After the notice of the writ petition has been served upon him the obvious course open to him was to have done his plain statutory duty, and to have returned the books forthwith. This he did not do. I am not at all satisfied of the bona fides of the respondent in the matter. His entire conduct leaves me with the impression that he determined to terrorize the petitioner, and to act in clear defiance of the law. That this was his determination appears cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
