The following important judgement is available for download at the itatonline.org download center.
Rajesh Rajora vs. UOI (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
High Court Hauls Up Dept For Bogus Raid On IAS Top Brass. Bogus s. 132 search due to "annoyance" of AO is abuse of power
A search was conducted at the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma, the then Director of Department of Public Health and Family Welfare. Pursuant thereto a search was conducted on the premises of Rajesh Rajora, who was then posted as Home Secretary in the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Rajesh Rajora filed a Writ Petition claiming that the search was mala fide and because he, in his capacity as Home Secretary, had not allotted a flat to the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) for 4 months and that this had highly annoyed the latter and that he had authorized the search warrant to take revenge. It was claimed that no illegal property was seized from the premises of the Petitioner and that a s. 153A notice and charge sheet was subsequently dropped. HELD by the High Court:
S. 132 does not confer any arbitrary authority upon the revenue officers to conduct a search. Since by the exercise of the power a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the taxpayer, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law or only for the purposes for which the law authorizes it to be exercised. If the action of the officer issuing the authorization or of the designated officer is challenged, the officer concerned must satisfy the court about the regularity of his action. If the action is maliciously taken or power under the section is exercised for a collateral purpose, it is liable to be struck down by the Court. If the conditions for exercise of the power are not satisfied the proceeding is liable to be quashed. It appears that because of the allotment of house to Respondent No.4, there was some annoyance of the authorities and as soon as on 20.5.2008 the house was got allotted by Chief Minister, on 28.5.2008 warrant of authorization was issued and on 30.5.2008 search was conducted. If there was some material with the Department that the petitioners had purchased some house or land property, then there could have been definite evidence in this regard, but for a period of 8 months no information was collected and all of a sudden the warrant of authorization was issued. From the perusal of panchnama prepared during seizure it appears that no objectionable document or undisclosed property was found except those which were declared in the earlier return. In absence of any cogent reasons in the present matter, the warrant of authorization could not have been issued. Issuance of warrant of authorization is a serious action and for this authorization officer should have recorded his satisfaction. Though normally the Court does not look to the reasons of satisfaction, but in the present case it appears that the warrant of authorization was issued merely on hypothecated grounds, which is not sustainable under the law (Seth Brothers 74 ITR 836 (SC) & H. L. Sibal 101 ITR 112 (P&H) followed)
Note: Rajesh Rajora has now filed a police complaint against the I. T. Dept for the bogus search. The IAS association has also demanded an inquiry. The CBDT has ordered an inquiry into the matter
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:S. 132B: Implications Of Seized Cash Not Being Treated As Advance Tax
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment