TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court. On 23rd August, 1970 the petitioner before the High Court, who is the respondent here, was travelling by car, alleged to be belonging to his brother from Ambala to Batala. He was intercepted near the Beas river by the Customs Officer and was forcibly taken along with the driver, Gurnam Singh, to the Customs House at Amritsar. The said petitioner in that application was searched along with his driver and the Customs authorities took into possession Rs.93,500 in Indian currency, 10 gold sovereigns and the car. On the 24th August, 1970, the petitioner was produced before a Duty Magistrate at Amritsar and was granted bail. In the meantime, the Customs department took proceedings under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and extended the period of issuing of the show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. These proceedings were challenged in the High Court by Writ Petition and the order of the Customs authority under Section 110(2) was quashed by an order of the learned single judge of the High Court on 24th April, 1972. The appeal against that decision was dismissed by the division bench along with this petition by the High Court. After the said judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 132 of the Act. Moreover, the authorisation was illegal if issued in the name of the person who did not have possession of the article, in respect of which it was issued. The High Court further held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order under Section 132 of the Act was not justified. Therefore, the High Court held that the search and seizure warrants were liable to be quashed and the money returned into the customs department. The judgment of the High Court is reported in 94 I.T.R. 567. The validity of the judgment is impugned in this appeal. 4. It is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions urged in this case to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 132 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 132 provides as follows : "Search and Seizure - (1) Where the Director of Inspection or the commissioner [or any such Deputy Director of Inspection or Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that - (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or under subsect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search; (iv) place mark of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (v) make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing;" 5. The only other sub-section to which reference need be made is sub-section (3) which is as follows :- "The authorised officer may, where it is not practicable to seize any such books of account, other document, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it except with the previous permission of such officer and such officer may take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance with this sub-section." 6. It is not necessary to refer to the other provisions for the present purpose. But the procedure indicated that if necessary, force may be used for search and seizure. Rule 112 of the said rules provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive Intelligence Officer, Central Excise and Customs, Agra and Others - 80 ITR 418, where the judgment was delivered by one of us (R.S. Pathak, J.). There the Court held that the power conferred under Section 132(1) of the Act was contemplated in relation to those cases where the precise location of the article or thing was not known to the Income-tax Department and therefore, a search was necessary for it, and where it would not be ordinarily yielded over by the person having possession of it. The view that Section 132(3) of the Act would include a case where the location of the article or thing was known and where ordinarily the person holding custody of it would readily deliver it up to the Income-tax Department was not correct, it was so held by the division bench of the Allahabad High Court. 9. It was further held that consequently goods in the custody of the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise were not things which could be the subject of an order under Section 132(3) of the Act. Pathak, J. spoke for the division bench there at p.422 of the report thus : "In my opinion, the power conferred under Section 132(1) is contemplated in relation to those cases wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty does not change. The seizure of the cash amount of Rs.3,05,530/- by the Central Excise Authorities in the instant case no doubt transferred physical possession of that amount from the petitioner to the Central Excise Department, but the legal ownership of that money still continued to be with the petitioner. As long as that amount was not confiscated or did not become the property of the Central Excise Department by virtue of an order passed under the relevant provision of law if at all any order could be so passed the property or the money did not cease to be that of the petitioner. Though the Collector of Central Excise and Customs was in possession of the money, since its alleged character of being undisclosed income or property remained unattended the Collector satisfied the description of "any person" being in possession of undisclosed income or property though the property represented the undisclosed income or property of the petitioner himself. The words used in Section 132(l)(c) are "any person". Such a person may be a person who is in possession of his own undisclosed income or property or a person who is in possession of somebody else's undisclosed income or proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has definite knowledge that the books of account, documents, money, bullion, etc., sought to be searched and seized are in the possession of a particular person he cannot issue an authorisation for search and seizure of the same. In our opinion, it may be mentioned that if the location was certain, then there was nothing to search or look for. Madhya Pradesh High Court, however, observed that the expression "has reason to believe" signified that the Commissioner has reason to be satisfied that the things to be searched are in the possession of a particular person. The object of Section 132 was according to the High Court, not merely to get information of the undisclosed income but also to seize the money, bullion, etc. representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for purposes mentioned in Section 132(5). Section 132(l)(c) of the Act did not contain a condition either expressly or impliedly that the thing to be seized should not be in the possession of a person who may willingly part with his possession. There is no obligation on any one, not even on Government officers of other Departments, to deliver anything to the income-tax authorities except when the law requires the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew was taken in Gulab and Company and Anr. v. Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Trichy, and Ors. - 98 ITR 581. For the reasons we have indicated hereinbefore, we are also unable to sustain this view. The Kerala High Court in the case of Assainar and Anr. v. Income-tax Officer, Calicut and Ors. - 101 ITR 854, also accepted this view. We are, for the aforesaid reasons, unable to sustain this view with respect. The High Court observed that the word "search" has varied meanings and it should be given the general meanings "to look for" or "seek" which are also well known. But in the context the expression "seizure" and in the context the expression "search" where the location of the property was known to the Government, we are of the opinion that it could not be said that one government Department could search any other government Department, and seize those documents. 13. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Motilal's case (supra) as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Laxmipat's case (supra) the learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramesh Chander v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 93 ITR 244 held that the word "seiz....