Section 132A requisition sustained where material supported reasonable belief of undisclosed assets, and writ review stayed limited.

A requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act was upheld because the competent authority had material supporting a reasonable belief that the seized silver articles represented undisclosed assets, including the absence of bills, vouchers, and documentary proof of source or ownership. The High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to testing whether the statutory preconditions for exercise of power existed, and cannot be used to reappraise the sufficiency of the material as an appellate forum. It also held that property in criminal court custody remains custodia legis and that custody did not invalidate the requisition. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the warrant of authorization issued under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction or otherwise liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The material placed before the authority disclosed seizure of silver articles carried without supporting bills or vouchers, statements under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not establish source, acquisition, or ownership with documentary proof, and no material showed mala fides or absence of the statutory precondition of reason to believe. The Court held that, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it could only examine whether the statutory preconditions for exercise of power existed and could not reappraise the material as an appellate forum. It further held that property produced before and under control of a criminal court is custodia legis for the purpose of section 132A, so the fact that the articles were in court custody did not nullify the requisition.

Conclusion: The warrant of authorization under section 132A was valid and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be sustained where the competent authority has material giving rise to a reasonable belief that the assets represent undisclosed income or property, and writ interference is confined to examining jurisdictional preconditions, not reappraisal of the merits of that belief.

---