9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs were returned to the petitioner on the 3rd February, 1936, some others were returned on the 10th February, 1966, and some further documents and papers were returned on the 15th February, 1966. It is the case of the petitioner that a large number of documents and papers are still being kept by the respondents and have not been returned to the petitioner in spite of repeated representations in that behalf. It is this retention of the books, documents and papers by the income-tax authorities which is challenged before me in this application. Although several grounds have been taken challenging the search, seizure and retention of the books and documents in the present case. Mr. Asoke Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, confined his challenge to the retention of the books and documents on one ground at the time of the hearing. My attention was drawn to section 132(8) of the Act which provides that books of account and other documents which have been seized under section 132(1) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of seizure unless reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Board stating therein his reasons for such objection and asking for the return of the books of account and other documents. Section 132(12) of the Act further provides that, on receipt of such an application, the Board may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit. It was submitted, on the strength of the above provisions, that unless the person who is entitled to the return of the books is communicated the reasons for the retention beyond 180 days and the approval of the Commissioner, it would not be possible for him to prefer his objections under section 132(10) of the Act. In other words, unless the requirement of communication of the reasons recorded by the officer and the approval of the Commissioner be read into the provisions of section 132(8), the valuable statutory right conferred by section 132(10) of the Act would be rendered entirely nugatory. Hence, Mr. Banerjee invited me to hold, on a proper interpretation of the scheme of the section 132(8) read in the light of sections 132(10) and 132(12), that it was incumbent on the authorities to communicate the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer in writing and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in spite of reasonable efforts, been unable to serve the order within a reasonable time or at all. In such a case, the date of making of the order is the date of the order. (3) Barring these exceptions, the law is that an order which affects the interests of a person cannot be said to be effectively made until it has been brought to his notice." Relying on the above decisions, Mr. Banerjee argued that, even on general principles, I should hold that since the order of retention of books and documents beyond the period of 180 days in the present case affects the rights of the petitioner, the order does not become complete and effective until it is communicated to the petitioner. Since there is no complete and effective order for retention of the books and documents under section 132(8) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to the return of the books and documents on this ground alone. Mr. Dipak Sen appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted in the first place that the power of the Income-tax Officer to retain the books and documents beyond the period of 180 days was fettered by two conditions, viz., (1) he must record the reasons for such retention in writing, and (2) he mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch do not amount to an order. Reference was made in this connection to sections 132(3) and 132(11) which use the expression "order ". It was pointed out that section 132(8) however does not use the expression "order" in terms. Once again, I fail to see how this contention helps the revenue. I must confess to considerable difficulty in appreciating how the seizure of books, documents and papers belonging to a citizen which clearly amounts to the deprivation of a valuable right of property can be continued beyond the statutory period of 180 days without there being an order by the appropriate authority in that behalf. Even if I assume in favour of the revenue that it is merely a decision and not an order, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh's case clearly requires such a decision to be communicated before a party can be bound by such a decision. Lastly, Mr. Sen drew my attention to a decision of this court in the case of Charandas Malhotra v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service. In that case it was held, on a construction of the provisions of section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, that, where a vested right has accrued to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
