Company's challenge to search and seizure operations dismissed after finding prima facie material justifying investigation

The Rajasthan HC dismissed a review petition challenging search and seizure operations conducted at the petitioner-company's premises. The petitioner alleged vexatious search and sought to restrain respondents from disposing of seized documents. The HC found prima facie material indicating involvement of the review petitioner and company directors, concluding the search was not vexatious or malicious. The court clarified it made no guilt findings, noting that material weight would be determined in subsequent departmental and criminal proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a review petition seeking to review an order passed in a civil writ petition, challenging a search conducted on the premises of a company, and questioning the involvement of an individual in alleged tax evasion.

Issue 1: Review of order dismissing writ petition challenging search and actions taken:
The petitioners filed review petitions seeking to review the order dismissing a writ petition challenging a search conducted on the premises of the petitioner-company. The petitioners prayed for recalling or modifying the order dated 12.02.2019, which dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench concluded that the officials of the respondents acted bona fide during the search, based on the material collected.

Issue 2: Allegations of tax evasion and involvement of an individual:
A review petition was filed by an individual, claiming that findings were made against him in the writ petition challenging tax evasion, despite him not being a director of the company at the time of the search. The individual argued that the observations against him should be expunged as he had resigned from the directorship before the search was conducted. The individual was arrested but later granted bail in connection with the alleged tax evasion.

Issue 3: Arguments and submissions in the review petition:
The individual argued that the observations made against him were incorrect as he had resigned from the directorship before the search. He contended that he was not involved in the alleged tax evasion and that the observations could harm him in other proceedings. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the observations were based on material on record indicating the involvement of the individual in the alleged tax evasion.

Issue 4: Consideration of material and conclusions in the judgment:
The Court considered various submissions and examined the material on record, including incriminating material collected by the Department. The Court noted the involvement of the individual in the company and the allegations of tax evasion against him. It was observed that the search conducted was not vexatious and that there was material indicating the involvement of the individual. The Court clarified that it did not make any finding of guilt but considered the material to assess the nature of the search.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of the Acting Chief Justice and another Justice. The review petitions were dismissed as they failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record and were considered appeals in disguise.

---