Writ petition partially allowed, notices quashed, documents returned, disputed ownership noted.

The court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the notices and recorded statement of an individual, directing the return of account books and documents to the petitioner-firm, except for disputed loose sheets. The court noted conflicting evidence on ownership of the loose sheets and clarified that even if seizure procedures were flawed, authorities could still use obtained materials. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the raid and seizure of books of account and other documents.
2. Authority of the Income-tax Officer to impound or seize documents during a survey.
3. Legitimacy of the notices issued under section 131 of the Income-tax Act.
4. Legality of compelling employees to make statements and sign documents.
5. Petitioner's request for the return of seized documents and prevention of their use.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Raid and Seizure:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, claimed that on April 23, 1974, Income-tax Officers raided its business premises and seized account books and other documents. The respondents argued that they only conducted a survey, not a search or seizure as per section 132 of the Income-tax Act. The court noted that the principal question was whether during a survey, the officer had the power to impound or take possession of account books or documents and compel employees to make statements or sign documents.

2. Authority to Impound or Seize Documents:
Section 133A of the Income-tax Act allows an Income-tax Officer to inspect books of account or other documents, place marks of identification, and make extracts. However, it does not authorize the removal of books or documents from the premises. The court found that the respondents' action of impounding and taking away the books of account was without legal authority, as section 133A does not confer the power to impound documents during a survey. The omission of sub-section (3) of section 131 from section 133A indicates that the legislature did not intend to grant such power during a survey.

3. Legitimacy of Notices Issued Under Section 131:
The respondents issued notices under section 131 to enforce compliance with the requirements of section 133A. The court observed that the notice served on S. N. Jopat at 2:50 p.m. did not mention the alleged refusal to provide facilities for inspection, identification marks, or extracts. Instead, it required the production of account books and documents, which had already been produced. The court concluded that the notice was without jurisdiction and that the officer's statement that Murlidhar did not afford the necessary facilities was false, as the details of the loose sheets were already available in the annexure to the notice.

4. Legality of Compelling Employees to Make Statements and Sign Documents:
The court found that the Income-tax Officer exceeded his powers by examining Murlidhar on matters unrelated to enforcing compliance with section 133A. The questions directed at Murlidhar aimed to elicit information about the firm's business affairs rather than ensuring compliance with inspection requirements. Similarly, the notice issued to Chandra Bhushan Shukla to appear and be examined had no relation to enforcing compliance and was therefore without jurisdiction. The court quashed the notices and the recorded statement of Murlidhar.

5. Petitioner's Request for Return of Seized Documents and Prevention of Their Use:
The petitioner sought the return of all documents seized during the raid and an order preventing the respondents from using the documents. The court held that the petitioner could legitimately ask for the return of its account books and documents, except for the loose sheets, which the petitioner claimed did not belong to it. The court could not determine the ownership of the loose sheets due to conflicting evidence. The court also noted that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), Income-tax, even if a search and seizure contravened section 132, the material obtained could still be used by the income-tax authorities. Consequently, the court could not restrain the authorities from initiating proceedings based on the seized documents.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed in part. The court quashed the impugned notices and the recorded statement of Murlidhar and directed the respondents to return the account books and other documents, except the loose sheets and copies made from them, to the petitioner-firm. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---