TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment of Orissa and a partner of M/s Serajuddin & Co., that is Defendant No. 1 before the Adjudicating Authority, on a complaint filed by the Dy. S.P. Vigilance Cell Unit alleging irregularities at Garuda Block mines Joda in Keonjhar. The appellant was not named in the FIR. 3. FIR No. 55 of 2009 registered on 19.11.2009 at P.S. Balasore Vigilance, inter alia, for offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) PC Act and Section 420, 201 and 120-B IPC S. 21 MMRD Act r/w S. 3 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 against certain officials of Mines Department of Orissa and M/s Serajuddin & Co., that is Defendant No. 1 before the Adjudicating Authority, on a complaint filed by the Dy. S.P. Vigilance Cell Unit alleging irregularities at Balda Block Iron Ore mines in Keonjhar. The appellant was not named in the FIR. 4. Charge sheets in FIR Nos. 54 and 55 of 2009 registered at P.S. Balasore Vigilance are filed on 31.03.2012 alleging a loss of Rs. 625,13,87,640/- and Rs. 698,21,79,141/-, respectively to the Government Exchequer. The appellant was not named in the charge sheets. 5. Enforcement Case Information Report No. BSZO/06/2014 dt. 12.12.2014 registered based on FIR Nos. 54 and 55 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding that there is "no requirement of reasons to be supplied at the time of conducting search". The Adjudicating Authority states that there is reason to believe that records of proceeds of crime may have been secreted in the premises of the appellant. ED stand with respect to the appellant that it was a transporting contractor of M/s Triveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. for transportation of iron ore in mine of Defendant no. 1. 10. In order to know the position as to whether actually there is „reasons to believe‟ recorded against the appellant in the combined order passed on 5th July, 2016 or if recorded, copy was served to the appellant, the file from the Adjudicating Authority was summoned. We have examined the file. There was no „reasons to believe‟ recorded against the present appeal appellant as per material available on file. It appears to us that there is only one order on 6th July, 2015 for recording the reasons to believe wherein there was no reference against the present appellant. Even, the counsel for the respondent was requested to produce the copy of „reasons to believe‟ recorded, if any, but nothing was produced before us. There is als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reading of the aforesaid provisions it will he clear that ordinarily the books of account or other documents that may be seized under an authorisation issued under Sub-sections (1) of Section 132 can be retained by the authorised officer or the concerned Income-fax Officer for a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of seizure, where after the person from whose custody such books or documents have been seized or the person to whom such books or documents belong becomes entitled to the return of the same unless the reasons for any extended retention are recorded in writing by the authorized officer/the concerned Income Tax Officer and approval of the Commissioner for such retention is obtained. In other words two conditions must be fulfilled before such extended retention becomes permissible in law:' (a) reasons in writing must be recorded by the authorised officer or the concerned Income-fax Officer seeking the Commissioner's approval and (b) obtaining of the Commissioner's approval for such extended retention and if either of these conditions is not fulfilled such extended retention will become unlawful and the concerned person (i.e. the person from whose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave „reason to believe‟, has held that the expression 'reason to believe' in Section 3 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income Tax Officer and that the belief must be held in good faith and it cannot be merely a pretence. It was further held by the Supreme Court that it is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the believe have a rational connection or an element bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the Section. e). The Supreme Court, in the case of Mohammad Aslam Merchant v. Competent Authority, [(2008) 14 SCC 186], while dealing with similar requirements under Section 68H of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, has held that both the statutory elements, namely, "reason to believe" and "recording of reasons" must be premised on the materials produced before him and that such materials must have been gathered during the investigation carried out in terms of Section 68-E or otherwise. It was further held that indisputably, therefore, he must have some materials before him and that if no such material had been placed before him, he cannot initiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statute prescribes a particular manner of doing a thing it must be done in that manner alone, and no other. Not following the statutory requirements makes the action null and void. Reference may be made to recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V. Mohinuddin Jamal Alvi, (2016) 12 SCC 608, paragraph 4 decided on 4th May, 2016 and P.P. Abdullah v. Competent Authority, (2007) 2 SCC 510 paragraphs 7, 8 & 9 decided on 14th December, 2006. 4. As per the aforesaid Section 20-A, no information about the commission of offence under TADA is to be recorded by the police without the prior approval of District Superintendent of Police. The specific authority which is named under sub- Section (1) of Section 20A is District Superintendent of Police. In the present case, it is on record that the approval that was taken was of Additional Director General of Police Mr. Shyam Partap Singh Rathore. The TADA Court has treated the said approval as valid because of the reason that approval is given by an authority which is higher than the District Superintendent of Police. The question, therefore, is as to whether it is only District Superintendent of Police whose appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded can be taken. Exercise of the power granting or refusing approval under Section 20-A (1) in its very nature casts a duty upon the officer concerned to evaluate the information and determine having regard to all attendant circumstances whether or not a case for invoking the provisions of TADA is made out. Exercise of that power by anyone other than the designated authority viz. the District Superintendent of Police would amount to such other authority clutching at the jurisdiction of the designated officer, no matter such officer or authority purporting to exercise that power is superior in rank and position to the officer authorised by law to take the decision. 21.3. Thirdly, because if the Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone. All other modes or methods of doing that thing must be deemed to have been prohibited. That proposition of law first was stated in Taylor v. Taylor and adopted later by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor and by this Court in a series of judgments including those in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara S....