Reason to believe for cash requisition upheld where seized cash, statements, and enquiries provided a prima facie basis.

A warrant of authorization under section 132A(1) was challenged on the ground that the competent authority lacked material to form the requisite belief for requisition of seized cash. The HC held that writ interference is limited to cases where statutory preconditions are absent, the action is mala fide, or the recorded satisfaction lacks relevant material. Here, the authority had information on the cash seizure, statements of the persons carrying it, the petitioner's statement, and follow-up enquiries on source of funds. As the explanations were inconsistent and unsupported by documents, the file and satisfaction note showed a prima facie basis for belief, and the Court declined to reappraise the material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the warrant of authorization issued under section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requisitioning the seized cash was liable to be quashed on the ground that the competent authority lacked the requisite material or reason to believe.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 permits interference with a requisition warrant only where the statutory preconditions are absent, the action is mala fide, or the recorded satisfaction is unsupported by relevant material. The authority had before it information regarding seizure of cash, statements of the persons carrying the cash, the statement of the petitioner, and subsequent enquiries about the source of the money. The petitioner's explanations were found inconsistent and unsupported by satisfactory documentary evidence. The Court found that the original file and satisfaction note disclosed more than a prima facie basis for the formation of belief under section 132A(1), and that the Court could not reappraise the material as an appellate forum.

Conclusion: The warrant of authorization was valid and the challenge failed; the decision was against the assessee.

---