22 - Search and Seizure

In the case of N Nagendra Rao & Co [1994 (9) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that the expression "reason to believe" has been interpreted by this court to mean that even though formation of opinion may be subjective but it must be based on material on the record. It cannot be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It is, thus, a check on exercise of power to seize the goods.

In the case of Lekhmani Mewal Das [1976 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court], it was held that the expression "reason to believe" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. 

Reason to believe requires subjective belief grounded in material evidence, preventing arbitrary or capricious searches. The concept of reason to believe requires that a subjective opinion be based on material on the record, not arbitrary or whimsical; it must be held in good faith and courts may test whether the reasons have a rational and relevant connection to the formation of belief, excluding extraneous considerations.