Inspection of seized assets: court affirms inspections need reasonable notice only; search standards not required, notices upheld.

A search requires pre-existing information giving rise to a reason to believe; those jurisdictional facts are mandatory for conducting searches, but not for inspecting already seized assets. Inspection of seized articles is treated as a verificatory, non-invasive exercise and may be ordered without the information or reason-to-believe standard applicable to searches. A reasonable notice to the person from whose custody items were seized, not a reasoned explanation, satisfies Rule 112(13) requirements; inventory and sealing must follow Rule 112(10). Inspection tied to a pending revision inquiry or otherwise for any purpose of the Act is permissible and the challenged notices were not arbitrary; writ dismissed with a seven-day operational stay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the information or reasons that prompted inspection of seized assets must be supplied to the person from whose custody the contents were seized; (ii) Whether the impugned notices for inspection were issued for "any of the purposes of the Act" and therefore valid under Rule 112(13) and Section 263.

Issue (i): Whether the information/reasons prompting inspection must be communicated to the person concerned.

Analysis: The Court contrasted the jurisdictional requirements for a search (which require information giving rise to reason to believe under Section 132) with the statutory scheme under Rule 112(13) allowing reopening of sealed packages "for any of the purposes of the Act". Inspection of seized articles is described as verificatory and not an invasive act equivalent to search; the power to inspect does not depend on the existence of information or a reason to believe. The Rules and Section 263 do not mandate disclosure of the information/reasons that triggered the inspection; Rule 112(13) requires only that a "reasonable notice" be given to enable presence. The petitioners interest in being prepared does not translate into a statutory right to pre-disclosure of the triggering information.

Conclusion: The Court held that the revenue is not required to supply the information or reasons that prompted the inspection. Conclusion in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notices were issued for "any of the purposes of the Act" and thus valid under Rule 112(13) and Section 263.

Analysis: The Court observed that Section 263 empowers the revising authority to "make or cause to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary" and that inspection of seized assets can legitimately form part of such inquiry. The notices, when read with the pleadings and submissions, reasonably connected the proposed inspection to the ongoing Section 263 proceeding. Rule 112(13) requires a reasonable notice to enable presence during inspection; it does not require a reasoned or detailed show-cause notice prior to initiating inspection. Authorities cited (including Amitabh Bachchan) support that Section 263 is not confined to the terms of the initial notice and that the assessee must be given opportunity to be heard before final order, not necessarily to receive pre-disclosure of every trigger for inquiry.

Conclusion: The Court held that the impugned notices were referable to "any of the purposes of the Act" (namely the pending Section 263 proceeding) and thus valid. Conclusion in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the inspection notices is dismissed; the notices are not unlawful, but fresh notices may be issued if necessary since the dates in the impugned notices have lapsed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 112(13) and Section 263, inspection of seized sealed packages may be carried out "for any of the purposes of the Act" without prior disclosure of the information/reasons that prompted inspection; the statutory requirement is a reasonable notice to the person from whose custody the contents were seized and an opportunity to be present and heard during the inspection.

---