Search and seizure powers upheld, gold-bond immunity denied, and excise seizure sustained for lack of proven prior tender.

Search and seizure under the Income-tax Act was upheld as a guided discretion exercised on recorded satisfaction and not an arbitrary power, so it did not violate Article 14. The claimed immunity under the gold bonds scheme failed because actual tender of gold before detection or seizure was not proved; a mere intention or disclosure was insufficient. The administrative assignment of the case supported the jurisdiction of the income-tax authorities to authorise and conduct the search, and the Central Excise seizure was also sustained because seizure under the relevant defence rules was not confined to search cases. The writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and seizure powers under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the alleged tender of gold under the gold bonds scheme conferred immunity from proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Defence of India Rules, 1962; (iii) whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay and the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to authorise and conduct the search at Ramgarh and seize the valuables; and (iv) whether the seizure by the Central Excise authorities was valid and could sustain proceedings under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure powers under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to authorise search and seizure was held to be a guided discretion, exercisable only when the higher authority had reason to believe that ordinary process under the Act would not secure the relevant material. The provisions were treated as serving the statutory object of obtaining undisclosed income and evidence, and not as conferring naked or unguided power. The Court relied on the scheme of the statute and the corresponding earlier provision upheld by other High Courts.

Conclusion: The provision was held to be valid and not violative of Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged tender of gold under the gold bonds scheme conferred immunity from proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The claimed application was found not to have been proved as a genuine prior tender of gold. The governing scheme required actual tender of gold, not a mere disclosure or expression of intention to tender later. The Court further held that the statutory exemption under the tax amendment and the gold-control notification operated only where the gold itself was tendered before detection or seizure, which was not established on the facts.

Conclusion: No immunity accrued to the petitioner from the alleged tender.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay and the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to authorise and conduct the search at Ramgarh and seize the valuables.

Analysis: The case had been assigned to the Bombay Central Commissioner and thereafter transferred within the hierarchy of income-tax officers. The Court held that jurisdiction under the relevant administrative scheme was based on assignment of cases and not confined by territorial limits in the manner urged. The search warrant was treated as properly issued on recorded satisfaction, and the search and seizure were found to have been conducted in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The authorisation and the search were held valid.

Issue (iv): Whether the seizure by the Central Excise authorities was valid and could sustain proceedings under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the Central Excise officer formally seized the gold from the custody of the Income-tax authorities. It held that Rule 126-L permitted seizure by an authorised officer and that the power of seizure was not confined to cases of search alone. Custody with the Income-tax authorities was treated as custody of the Government in a statutory sense, but not as a bar to action under the Defence of India Rules. The excise seizure was therefore not illegal, and the petitioner could not insist on release for a fresh tender under the gold bonds scheme.

Conclusion: The excise seizure was upheld and the related challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on all substantive grounds. The Court upheld the legality of the income-tax search and seizure, rejected the claim of immunity based on the alleged gold-bond tender, and sustained the excise action. The petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A search-and-seizure power is valid where it is structured by statutory safeguards and exercised on recorded satisfaction, and immunity under a gold-bonds or similar exemption scheme arises only on proof of actual tender of gold before detection or seizure.

---