1975 (12) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es - rules are valid
Judge(s) : P. N. SHINGHAL., M. H. BEG., R. S. SARKARIA. and A. N. ROY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SHINGHAL J.-This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution. Bhupendra Ratilal Thakkar, petitioner No. 1, is the managing partner of the other petitioner, M/s. Rajnikant Nareshchandra Shroff, which is a partnership firm carrying on the business of "shroffs and bankers". Its principal place of business is said to be at Mehmedabad, with branches at Surat and Bombay. The petitioners applied for registration of the firm on April 7, 1971, and had time to file their return of income up to June 30, 1972. It has been claimed that the firm had large sums of money in cash as well as "hundis" an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It has also been urged that the aforesaid rules are illegal as they are not backed by any legal authority. The aforesaid provisions have also been challenged on the ground that they are violative of article 14. In regard to sections 132 and 132A of the Act, the petitioners have further stated that they should be struck down as they confer naked, arbitrary, unguided, discriminatory and uncanalised power on the executive authority. The petitioners have also prayed for the restoration of the property which has been seized by the income-tax authorities. It has been pointed out in the petition that three similar writ petitions were pending in this court, including Writ Petition No. 446 of 1971, Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raised in this petition have been considered in that case, and that he has nothing to say in regard to the validity of sections 132 and 132A of the Act and rules 112 and 112A of the Rules or the averments in the petition in that connection. In fact it has been held by this court in Pooran Mal's case, that "it was impossible to hold that the impugned provisions were violative of article 14, 19 or 31". All that Mr. Shroff has argued is that the validity of rules 112B and 112C of the Rules was not the subject-matter of examination in Pooran Mal's case, and that it would be necessary for this court to examine that part of the controversy, as and when it is permissible to do so, with reference to the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X