2010 (10) TMI 900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to appear before him. The orders of summons are under challenge before this Court in these three writ petitions. 3. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. P. Radhakrishnan impugning the summons firstly contended as the Central Board of Excise and Customs itself had given circular that personal appearance need not be insisted upon and hence it is unnecessary to appear. Secondly he submitted that there is no requirement in law to appear on summons when the petitioners themselves can depute a person who is familiar with their accounts to make clarification to the officers in respect of petitioners' business. He claimed that in the present case, the petitioners have kept the records clean and they are ready to co-operate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... summons so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In this case, the issue related to the summons issued by the Excise authorities. Even while dealing with the power of search and seizure provided under the Income Tax Act, when a challenge was made about the likelihood of the abuse of the power by the authorities, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had rejected such contentions vide its judgment in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), reported in (1974) 1 SCC 345. It is necessary to extract the passages found in paras 7 to 9 which are as follows; "7. Dealing first with the challenge under Article 19(l)(f) and (g) of the Constitution it is to be n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lled on the ground that a power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. As pointed out in that case a search by itself is not a restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property though a seizure is a restriction on the right of possession and enjoyment of the property seized. That, however, is only temporary and for the limited purpose of investigation. Then the Court proceeds to say:(p.1081) "A search and seizure is, therefore, only a temporary interference with the right to hold the premises searched and the articles seized. Statutory regulation in this behalf is necessary and reasonable restriction c....