Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1986 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1986 (7) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURTSearch and seizure - Held that:- The High Court observed that the word "search" has varied meanings and it should be given the general meanings "to look for" or "seek" which are also well known. But in the context the expression "seizure" and in the context the expression "search" where the location of the property was known to the Government, we are of the opinion that it could not be said that one government Department could search any other government Department, and seize those documents. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Motilal's case (1970 (10) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD High Court) as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Laxmipat's case (1970 (11) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA High Court) the learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramesh Chander v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1972 (5) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] held that the word "seizure" implied forcibly taking from the owner or who has the possession and who was unwilling to part with the possession. In that case custody was with the police and it would be inappropriate to accept the position that the Income tax Department which was another Department of the Union of India had to be armed with authority to seize from the unwilling persons. We are in agreement with these views of the learned single judge. In the view of the law as it stood at the relevant time, we are unable to sustain the challenge to the order, impugned in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observations that it will be open to the Income-tax authorities to approach the appropriate authorities to realise any amount of money or to recover any books of account or documents in accordance with law.
|