TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam for brevity) has been dismissed in limine. 2.. Brief history of the case is that a search of the petitioner-appellant s premises was made by respondent No. 2 on February 7, 1996 and February 8, 1996. Certain documents were seized and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was collected from the petitioner-appellant by cheque dated February 8, 1996 drawn on State Bank of Indore, towards penalty. After completion of search and seizure, a notice was issued to the petitioner-appellant for further scrutiny. The said proceedings are still pending. Meanwhile the appellant served a legal notice on March 26, 1996 (vide annexure P8) challenging the raid, searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Zelawat submitted that there was valid constitution of the committee, the committee was duly authorised for conducting raid. There was sufficient material for the same. It has further been submitted that the assessee gave voluntary statement and made certain disclosures and offered Rs. 5,00,000 towards tax. It has also been submitted that there was false billing, lesser quantity of goods was shown to have been sold, but the actual sale was double the quantity of product shown in the bill. It has also been submitted that seizure of documents and statements made by the petitioner-appellant further justify the raid conducted by the authorities. Learned counsel for the State produced concerned file and statements of the petitioner-appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Officer v. Seth Brothers reported in [1969] 74 ITR 836 has propounded the following principles for dealing such cases: Since by the exercise of the power under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the tax-payer, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the law authorises it to be exercised. If the action of the officer issuing the authorisation or of the designated officer is challenged, the officer concerned must satisfy the court about the regularity of his action. If the action is maliciously taken or power under the section is exercised for a collateral purpose, it is liable to be struck down b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eful for or relevant to the proceeding under the Act will not by itself vitiate the search, nor will it entitle the aggrieved person to an omnibus order releasing all documents seized. The aggrieved party may undoubtedly move a competent court for an order releasing the documents seized. In such a proceeding the officer who has made the search will be called upon to prove how the documents seized are likely to be useful for or relevant to a proceeding under the Act. If he is unable to do so, the court may order that those documents be released. But the circumstance that a large number of documents have been seized is not a ground for holding that all documents seized are irrelevant or the action of the officer is mala fide. By sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place identification marks on several documents will not by itself supply a ground for holding that the search was mala fide: Held, on the facts, that in keeping police officers at the time of the search in the house of influential businessmen to ensure protection of the officers and the records, it could not be said that excessive force was used. In appropriate cases a writ petition may lie challenging the validity of action taken under section 132, even before the investigation pursuant to the action taken by the Income-tax Officer is made, on the ground of absence of power or on a plea that the proceedings were taken maliciously or for a collateral purpose. But normally the High Court in such a case should not proceed to determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on oath the existence of the conditions which confer jurisdiction, and sets out facts which may, unless disproved, support his case, an order dismissing his petition in limine may not properly be made. 10.. In our considered opinion it was necessary for the single Bench to have obtained reply of the respondents as to the correctness and legality of the constitution of the committee and search and seizure made in consequence of the report of the committee. 11.. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant referred to a case reported in [1966] 17 STC 305 (Mad.) (A. Appathurai Nadar v. Government of Madras) and submitted that the Act does not authorise department to receive any amount from a dealer as advance towards provisional or fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
