TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s liable to confiscation, or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Customs Act are secreted in any place as contemplated under Section 105(1) of the Customs Act or that the said authorisation was issued without application of mind - no case is made out to interfere in the matter at this stage of seizure – seizure upheld - 3497 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2011 - Shantanu Kemkar and Abhay M. Naik, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.M. Choudhary, Counsel, for the Petitioner. S/Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, Counsel with Jaidev Singh, Sr. Intelligence Officer, for the Respondent. [Order per : Shantanu Kemkar, J.]. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act. On 10-5-2011 when the matter came up for hearing on the question of admission the said officer of the respondents has produced the relevant record in a sealed cover about recording of the satisfaction of the condition precedent for issuance of the order of authorisation by the competent authority. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record produced before us during the course of the hearing. 5. On going through the said record we find that the Additional Director General, in his proceedings/orders dated 15-2-2011 has recorded that on the basis of the various searches conducted at various premises of manufacturers, godowns and dealers of various cigarette manufacturers in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of the same, as observed we are satisfied that the authorization has been duly issued by the authorising officer after recording satisfaction as provided under Section 105(1) of the Customs Act. 8. Recently in the case of M/s. Manoj Kumar Co. and Another v. Director of Income Tax Others (W.P. No. 3625 of 2007 decided on 5-5-2011) this Court had occasion to deal with similar provision under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act. In paras 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, it has been held thus :- 8. It is almost a settled law that in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, High Court has inherent powers to enter into question of existence of information, which would provide a basis to form a reason to believe that the amount s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... containing the challenge to authorization under Section 132A of the IT Act is in our opinion well explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sohanlal Mundra v. Union of India reported as [1996] Tax Law Reporter 960 (Raj.) in the following passage : It is further true that when issuance of an authorisation under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is challenged in a court of law, it will be open to the petitioners to contend that on the facts or information disclosed no reasonable man could have arrived at the conclusion that the action under Section 132A was called for although formation of opinion under the said Section is subjective. It is well to remember that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy of the information is not to be gone into by this Court, which is not empowered to substitute its opinion. Sufficiency of reasons for belief cannot be equally questioned before this Court. 13. Single Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnagopal v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Another reported as [2009 (222) CTR (MP) 100] has observed :- 6. A statutory functionary must act in a manner laid down in a statute. A bare reading of Section 132A(1) makes it clear that the power conferred on the authority is conditional and the conditions precedent for authorising action are possession of information by the authority and in consequence of which the authority must have reason to believe that the person concerned has assets whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
