TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BC by the fourth respondent; (iii) notice issued by the fifth respondent dated May 19, 1997 under section 158BC, and (v) transfer order dated April 24, 1997 under section 127 of the said Act passed by the sixth respondent. (B) that this hon'ble court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order under article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to return all papers, documents, account books, seized by the respondents in the course of illegal search and seizure proceedings between February 13, 1997 and February 20, 1997." 3. Mr. K. H. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that one Shri Dayabhai Narshibhai Patel is the president of the petitioner association. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased an immovable property called "Rupam Talkies" under two different sale deeds dated September 28, 1992, for an aggregate sum of Rs.64 lakhs. For carrying out the aforesaid transaction, necessary certificate was obtained from the Appropriate Authority in terms of the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The vendors had also obtained necessary tax clearance ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served by the ADIT as under: and forth is in the field of construction which is likely started (sic) 6. After observing this, a proposal has been made for initiating proceedings under section 132 of the Act in relation to (1) Shri Pankajbhai Haribhai Valia, and (2) Shri Bharatbhai H. Valia. Further proposal for survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act has been made in relation to the factory premises of (1) M/s. Associated Plastic Industries, (2) Hardik Industrial Corporation, (3) Gujarat Packing-both at Bhavnagar at Mumbai. This proposal has been accepted by DDIT (Inv.), Rajkot, and the DIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad, on December 19, 1995 and December 20, 1995 respectively. 7. However, on February 12, 1996, ADIT (Inv.), Bhavnagar has stated: "The above warrants cannot be executed on the administration grounds and non-availability of Authorised Officer who are busy in time-barring cases. Police guard are also not available on various dates. In view of this the warrants may be cancelled at present and the same will be put up for necessary action at proper time." 8. The aforesaid proposal has been accepted by the DDIT on February 12, 1996 and by the DIT on February 13, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act. 11. The above proposal which was accepted on January 29, 1997 related only to carrying out survey at the premises of the petitioner corporation. Subsequently, on February 14,1997, ADIT (Inv.) Bhavnagar has recorded as under, (which is reproduced verbatim): "During the course of search in Valia and Patel group the business premises of Suvidha Association Ghogha Circle was covered under section 133A of the Income-tax Act. It is reported that the business premises remained closed whole day on February 13, 1997. The ADIT Jamnagar also reported that G. 34 Rameshwar Flats, Ghogha Circle, Bhavnagar has the business premises of Mahavir builder proprietorship concern of Shri Dayabhai N. Patel and Suvidha Association. There are likely to found some incriminating documents. In order to effect to seizure and seal for the above the search warrant under section 132(1) may be issued for G. 34 Rameshwar Flats, Ghogha Circle, Bhavnagar Office of Mahavir builder proprietorship concern of Shri Dayabhai N. Patel and Suvidha Association. Put up before Addl. DIT (Inv.) Rajkot for necessary action" 12. Therefore, for the first time, on February 14, 1997, a warrant of authorisation h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued and the petitioner had failed to comply with the same. The only whisper that one finds in the satisfaction note dated February 14, 1997 recorded by ADIT (Inv.) Bhavnagar is-there are likely to found some incrimiting, (sic) (incriminating) documents." 17. In the aforesaid factual matrix, none of the conditions stipulated by section 132(1) of the Act is shown to be satisfied as per the record of the respondent-Department. The respondent authorities, therefore, could not have any reason to believe that the petitioner-corporation would not respond to a summons or notice as stipulated by condition (b) and conditions (a) and (c) have already been ruled out, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the satisfaction note does not indicate any information in the possession of the Authorised Officer for initiating the proceedings. Hence, on this count alone, the warrant of authorisation dated February 14, 1997, cannot be sustained, and is required to be quashed and set side. 18. There is one more aspect of the matter. During the course of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the respondent authorities that the entire chain of events from 1995, i.e., when th....