Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a partnership-firm. It carries on business of supply of industrial chemicals, like caustic soda, soda ash, cement, etc., in its business premises situate at 49/27, Generalganj, Kanpur.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that on 23rd April, 1974, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, who are Income-tax Officers of various circles at Kanpur, together with a number of income-tax inspectors and a peon raided the business premises of the petitioner. THEy searched the business premises and the account books of the petitioner-firm. THEy took control of the cash box, counted its contents and compared the same with the balances in the books, noted down the same in the statement of the accountant and procured the signature of the cashier on it. At that time Murlidhar, a manager of the firm, was in the office. Satya Narayan Jopat, who is alleged to be the petitioner's agent for doing income-tax cases, was also present there. It is alleged that after the books of account of the petitioner-firm had been seized by the respondent they placed about eleven sheets, some of them in type-script and others in manuscript, and insisted that Murlidhar and Jopat sign them. THEse persons refused to sign the sheets as they did not know anything about them. THEreupon, the respondents who were present at the shop telephoned Sri H. C. Garg, respondent No. 5, who was Assistant Director (Investigation), Kanpur, and told him that these persons were refusing to sign the loose sheets. It is alleged that Sri Garg arrived at the shop at about 4 p.m. along with a stenographer and other employees of the department. He threatened Murlidhar and Jopat that if they did not sign the sheets the godown and the business premises shall be sealed and the residence of the partners of the firm will be searched and sealed. Under this strain and coercion, Murlidhar and Jopat ultimately signed the sheets. THEreafter, Sri Garg examined Murlidhar and recorded his statement. This statement was also got signed by Murlidhar. According to the petitioner, at this stage the respondent issued a notice under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, addressed to Jopat, requiring him to produce at the office of respondent No. 1 at 3 p.m. that day, the account books as well as the loose sheets, of which details were given in the notice. At the same time another notice under Section 131 addressed to Chandra Bhushan Shukla was also served on Jopat. Shukla was directed to appear before respondent No. 1 the next day for being examined. He was also asked to produce the documents and accounts mentioned in it. It appears that according to the statement of Murlidhar as recorded by the respondents, Murlidhar stated that the loose sheets were in the handwriting of Chandra Bhushan Shukla, who was the accountant of the firm. Thereupon, Chandra Bhushan Shukla, who was not at that time present in the firm, was required to attend the next day for being examined on oath. According to the petitioner, the respondents seized all the books of account as well as the loose sheets and took them away at about 5 p.m.
(3.) ON 25th April, 1974, another notice was issued under Section 131(2) to the petitioner-firm. It was stated in it that Murlidhar had promised to produce Chandra Bhushan Shukla on 24th April, 1974, at 11 a.m. in compliance with a notice under Section 131, but had failed to do so. The petitioner was required to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon it. The petitioner-firm filed a reply denying the allegations or its liability to produce Chandra Bhushan Shukla. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the validity of the raid as well as the seizure of the books of account and other documents and prays that the respondents be directed to return all the documents seized by them from the premises of the petitioner on 23rd April, 1974. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed not to make any copy or to make any abstract or note from the documents illegally seized by them; and that they be directed not to initiate any proceedings of any kind against the petitioner on the basis of the seized documents.;