https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289431 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. en-us Tue, 17 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:22:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289431 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289431