Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 655 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of Search proceedings - search under Central Excise post GST u/s 12F of the Act of 1944 read with Section 18 of the Act of 1944 and Section 174(2)(e) of the Act of 2017 - admission of HAWALA transaction through Whatsapp messages during search - search conducted by Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence in the premises of the petitioner at Jaipur on 27.08.2017 - Reason to believe present or not - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to uphold the contention that the respondents did not have sufficient material to form requisite “reason to believe” as envisaged under Section 12F read with Section 18 of the Act of 1944 and Section 100 (4)(5) Cr.P.C. to conduct the search in question. We are also not inclined to countenance the submission that since the Act of 2017 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2017, proceedings of search could not have been carried out at Jaipur premises of the petitioner-company and that the said proceedings would not be saved by virtue of Section 174 of the Act of 2017. We hold so because the proceedings of search and seizure carried out in the premises of the petitioner at J-6, 2nd Floor, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan were in continuation of the proceedings already initiated prior to enforcement of the Act of 2017, which is evident from the fact that the respondents had already on receipt of intelligence conducted simultaneous search operations at various places at Bastar, Indore and Jaipur on 30.01.2017 after following the due procedure under Section 12F read with Section 18 of the Act of 1944. Relevance of the documents seized by the respondents - HELD THAT:- The documents seized by the respondents, most of which were original title deeds/sale deeds of the immovable properties, is concerned, it is found that certain incriminating material was found from drawer of the table in the cabin of Mr. Natwar Lal Sharda, Managing Director of the petitioner-company, which shows that he is the real owner of the unregistered factory and actual beneficiary of the business in Village Belinga, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh - Merely because some of the files that were seized by the search team contained original sale/title deeds of the immovable properties and the same were eventually returned back would not be sufficient to vitiate the entire action of the respondents because the material suggests that the officials of the respondents in doing so acted bona fide - Mere use of the word, “resumed” in place of “seized” at certain places in the panchnama would not in any manner invalidate the action of the respondents in ultimately seizing certain documents in the course of investigation. An error committed by the Officer in seizing the documents which may ultimately be found not to be useful for or relevant to the proceeding under the Act will not by itself vitiate the search. If prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief of the officer in conducting search, this Court would have no reason not to accept such belief, although it may or may not have entertained such belief. Petition dismissed.
|