- (1.) THIS is an application for appropriate writs and orders for setting aside, quashing or cancelling several warrants of authorisation mentioned in the subparagraphs under paragraph 8 of the petition, whereby several Income-tax officers were directed to enter, search and seize various books of account, documents, money, jewellery or other valuable articles which might be found as a result of the search, and to take possession thereof.
(2.) THE petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are partners of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 was registered under the Income-tax Act, 1922 as a registered firm. The assessment of the petitioners to income tax had been completed upto the assessment year 1963-64. The returns for the assessment year 1964-65 and 1965-66 have been filed, but the assessments in respect of these two years have not yet been completed. The petitioners' contention is that on no occasion since the registration of the petitioner No. 1 in 1941, the petitioners failed to produce books of account, documents and vouchers when called upon to do so by the income tax authorities. They claimed to have paid all dues for income tax and never to have failed to comply with any summons under s. 37 (1) of the Income Tax act, 1922, or under Section 131 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or of any notice under Section 22 (4) of the income-tax Act, 1922 on under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(3.) ON January 31, 1967, a number of Income-tax Officers came to the petitioners' officer at 21a, Canning Street and also to the residence of the petitioners nos. 2, 3 and 4 at 22, Mandaville gardens, with warrants of authorisation: issued under Section 132 of the Incometax act, 1961, and Rule 112 (1) of the income-tax rules, 1962. The warrants of authorisation were issued by the respondent No. 1 for searching premises no. 21 A, Canning Street and No. 22, mandaville Gardens. There was a third warrect for searching premises No. 21a, canning Street in connection with the the firm of Ramswaroop Mamchand of which the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are partners. A search at the premises No. 21a. Canning Street, Calcutta, was made on January 31, 1967, and a search at premises No. 22, Mandaville Gardens was also made on the same date. After the search, officers of the department seized books of account, pepers and documents of the current year as also of several past years at No. 21a, Canning street, Calcutta. It is also alleged that the searching officers did not care to look into the books, documents and papers which were seized. Similarly all books of account, papers and documents at No. 22, Mandaville Gardens were also seized. The petitioners' contention is that there was a general raid, a general search and a general seizure of all books, documents and papers relating to the business of the petitioners extending over several past years. The raid, search and seizure, it is alleged, were conducted indiscriminately, arbitraraily and without regard to the usefulness of the documents seized, for the purpose of any proceedings under the income-tax law. After the search at mandaville Gardens on the 2nd day namely February 1. 1967 the authorised officers wanted to make an inventory of the documents, but one of the petitioners, namely, Muralilal Agarwalla requested the authorised officers to put the documents, books and papers found on the 2nd day of the search, in steel trunks and in gunny bags, and to seal them and to make the inventory at a later date at the office of the department. An inventory was subsequently prepared at the office of the department between February 10 and February 15, 1967. It is further alleged that besides seizure of the books and documents, the officers seized all the ornaments which were in the possession of the ladies at No. 22, Mandaville Gardens. An inventory was also made of the seized jewellery. Nearly 1300 documents are alleged to have been seized and most of these documents, it is alleged, were in respect of periods for which assessments had already been completed and the tax due had been paid by the petitioners. It is also alleged that most of the books seized at 22, Mandaville Gardens were not only old books, but were books belonging to outsiders, and were not, and could not be useful for any proceedings against the petitioners.;