Sunil Vidhyasagar Gat & Anr v. Sca/324/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 324 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA ANDHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================== =============== 1 [Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be ]allowed to see the judgment ?allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?` 3 [Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment?of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial question 4of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made there under ?of India, 1950 or any order made there under ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SUNIL VIDHYASAGAR GAT & ANRVersusSHALINI VERMA OFFICER OF DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) & ORS========================================================= Appearance :MR. BHARGAV KARIA & ASSO for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4.========================================================= CORAM : [HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 12/03/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)BHATTACHARYA) 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioners, two brothers, have prayed for issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned warrant of authorization dated February 16, 2011 issued by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to handover the custody of the seized silver articles to the petitioners.the writ-petitioners, two brothers, have prayed for issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned warrant of authorization dated February 16, 2011 issued by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to handover the custody of the seized silver articles to the petitioners. 2. The case made out by the writ-petitioners in the writ-application may be summed up thus:-may be summed up thus:- 2.1 The petitioners are residents of village Hupari, Taluka Hathagande, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra State and are assessed to Income Tax by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Kchalkaranji, Dist. Kolhapur, in the State of Maharashtra.Hathagande, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra State and are assessed to Income Tax by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Kchalkaranji, Dist. Kolhapur, in the State of Maharashtra. 2.2 The petitioners reside in a joint-family with their parents and are silver artisans and manufacturing silver articles and doing business separately. They are assessed to Income tax are silver artisans and manufacturing silver articles and doing business separately. They are assessed to Income tax separately. 2.3 The petitioners have been carrying on business of purchase and sale of silver as well as articles made of silver after manufacturing those from the silver purchased by them on 'Badala Majuri' system, i.e. business of manufacturing of silver articles on job basis. and sale of silver as well as articles made of silver after manufacturing those from the silver purchased by them on 'Badala Majuri' system, i.e. business of manufacturing of silver articles on job basis. separately. 2.3 The petitioners have been carrying on business of purchase and sale of silver as well as articles made of silver after manufacturing those from the silver purchased by them on 'Badala Majuri' system, i.e. business of manufacturing of silver articles on job basis. and sale of silver as well as articles made of silver after manufacturing those from the silver purchased by them on 'Badala Majuri' system, i.e. business of manufacturing of silver articles on job basis. 2.4 The petitioners, during the course of business over a period of time, accumulated stock of silver while doing the job-work due to difference in tounchs of silver and such gain is credited in the day-to-day Stock Register and closing stock under the head 'increase in silver account' since the beginning of the system.of time, accumulated stock of silver while doing the job-work due to difference in tounchs of silver and such gain is credited in the day-to-day Stock Register and closing stock under the head 'increase in silver account' since the beginning of the system. 2.5 All the manufacturing job, purchases and sales of silver and silver articles are supported by bills and vouchers with quantity details since the beginning of the business in the year 1992 by the petitioners and the same are duly reflected in the respective Income Tax Returns filed with the office of the respondent No.2.silver articles are supported by bills and vouchers with quantity details since the beginning of the business in the year 1992 by the petitioners and the same are duly reflected in the respective Income Tax Returns filed with the office of the respondent No.2. 2.6 The petitioners are engaged in business with parties residing at distance and hence, extensive travelling is required for the purpose of receiving and supplying of silver and silver articles for getting orders and for recovery.residing at distance and hence, extensive travelling is required for the purpose of receiving and supplying of silver and silver articles for getting orders and for recovery. 2.7 On February 13, 2011, the petitioner No.2, during the course of such business, was travelling from his native place Hupari to the State of Rajasthan with silver ornaments weighing 233.643 kgs.course of such business, was travelling from his native place Hupari to the State of Rajasthan with silver ornaments weighing 233.643 kgs. 2.8 On February 14, 2011 when the petitioner No.2 was on the way from Hupari to Rajasthan by travelling on a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. MH.12.EG.1243 along with two other persons, viz. Ismail Mahboob Mullah and Duryodhan Neminath Firgal, they were stopped at Bagwada Check Post Naka by police authorities to make some inquiries on the allegation that the petitioner No.2 was having silver ornaments/articles. The respondent No.4 also drew a panchnama on February 14, 2012.way from Hupari to Rajasthan by travelling on a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. MH.12.EG.1243 along with two other persons, viz. Ismail Mahboob Mullah and Duryodhan Neminath Firgal, they were stopped at Bagwada Check Post Naka by police authorities to make some inquiries on the allegation that the petitioner No.2 was having silver ornaments/articles. The respondent No.4 also drew a panchnama on February 14, 2012. 2.9 On February 15, 2012, the car was detained and the police authorities arrested the petitioners No.2 along with the two above named persons travelling with him. Without giving any time to the petitioner No.2 to explain, the silver ornaments carried by them were seized at the Bagwada Toll Naka on the suspicion that those did not belong to the petitioners and were stolen materials. The respondent No.4 registered a complaint being No.1 of 2011 under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act on February 15, 2011.authorities arrested the petitioners No.2 along with the two above named persons travelling with him. Without giving any time to the petitioner No.2 to explain, the silver ornaments carried by them were seized at the Bagwada Toll Naka on the suspicion that those did not belong to the petitioners and were stolen materials. The respondent No.4 registered a complaint being No.1 of 2011 under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act on February 15, 2011. 2.10 On February 14, 2011 itself, the respondent No.4 informed the respondent No.1 with regard to the seizure of the silver ornaments. Pursuant to such intimation, the respondent No.1 asked the respondent No.4, the police authorities, by a letter dated February 14, 2011 to withhold the silver ornaments and jewellery and not to release those without prior intimation to the Income Tax Department. Letters dated February 17, 2011 and May 16, 2011 followed this intimating the respondent No.4 regarding initiation of the process in respect of those seized silver ornaments under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.the respondent No.1 with regard to the seizure of the silver ornaments. Pursuant to such intimation, the respondent No.1 asked the respondent No.4, the police authorities, by a letter dated February 14, 2011 to withhold the silver ornaments and jewellery and not to release those without prior intimation to the Income Tax Department. Letters dated February 17, 2011 and May 16, 2011 followed this intimating the respondent No.4 regarding initiation of the process in respect of those seized silver ornaments under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 2.11 On February 16, 2011, the respondent No.1 also issued a warrant of authorization in the prescribed form No. 45(c) dated February 16, 2011 under section 132A(1) of the Act read with Rule 112D(1) of the Income Tax Rules. 2.12 On February 28, 2011, the learned Magistrate passed a judgment in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2011 registered under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act thereby acquitting the petitioner No.2 and the two other persons who were travelling with him of the charges of section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate passed order to handover the muddamal silver articles/ornaments to the petitioner No.2 after the period for filing appeal against the said judgment was over.judgment in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2011 registered under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act thereby acquitting the petitioner No.2 and the two other persons who were travelling with him of the charges of section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate passed order to handover the muddamal silver articles/ornaments to the petitioner No.2 after the period for filing appeal against the said judgment was over. 2.13 On May 31, 2011, the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, to stay the judgment dated April 28, 2011 as the respondent No.1 intended to challenge the said judgment by way of an appeal. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, to stay the judgment dated April 28, 2011 as the respondent No.1 intended to challenge the said judgment by way of an appeal. 2.14 The learned Magistrate, therefore, stayed the operation and implementation of his judgment till June 16, 2011. and implementation of his judgment till June 16, 2011. 2.13 On May 31, 2011, the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, to stay the judgment dated April 28, 2011 as the respondent No.1 intended to challenge the said judgment by way of an appeal. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, to stay the judgment dated April 28, 2011 as the respondent No.1 intended to challenge the said judgment by way of an appeal. 2.14 The learned Magistrate, therefore, stayed the operation and implementation of his judgment till June 16, 2011. and implementation of his judgment till June 16, 2011. 2.15 The respondent No.1 thereafter preferred an appeal before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Valsad being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2011. before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Valsad being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2011. 2.16 In the said Criminal Appeal, the respondent No.1 also filed an application for stay of the judgment dated April 28, 2011 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2011 till the final disposal of the appeal and for a direction upon the respondent No.4 not to handover the silver articles/ornaments to the petitioner No.2.an application for stay of the judgment dated April 28, 2011 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2011 till the final disposal of the appeal and for a direction upon the respondent No.4 not to handover the silver articles/ornaments to the petitioner No.2. 2.17 On June 28, 2011, the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad, passed an order of stay till July 8, 2011, which was extended from time to time till the final disposal of the appeal.Valsad, passed an order of stay till July 8, 2011, which was extended from time to time till the final disposal of the appeal. 2.18 Ultimately, on December 14, 2011, the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad, was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 by directing the respondent No.4 to handover the seized silver ornaments/articles to the respondent No.1, and also directed the respondent No.1 to decide the question involved in the proceedings under Section 132A of the Act as early as possible.District Judge, Valsad, was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 by directing the respondent No.4 to handover the seized silver ornaments/articles to the respondent No.1, and also directed the respondent No.1 to decide the question involved in the proceedings under Section 132A of the Act as early as possible. 2.19 The petitioners filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad, to grant 30 days’ time to approach the higher forum against the judgment and the learned Judge was pleased to grant 30 days’ time by keeping the said judgment in abeyance.Additional District Judge, Valsad, to grant 30 days’ time to approach the higher forum against the judgment and the learned Judge was pleased to grant 30 days’ time by keeping the said judgment in abeyance. 2.19 The petitioners filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Valsad, to grant 30 days’ time to approach the higher forum against the judgment and the learned Judge was pleased to grant 30 days’ time by keeping the said judgment in abeyance.Additional District Judge, Valsad, to grant 30 days’ time to approach the higher forum against the judgment and the learned Judge was pleased to grant 30 days’ time by keeping the said judgment in abeyance. 2.20 The petitioners, thus, have, filed the present writ-application challenging the issue of notice under section 132A of the Act. The prime ground taken is that as the petitioners are regular assessees and they are co-operating with the Income Tax Department, there was no reason to believe that the silver articles, which were seized by the respondent No.4 on February 14, 2011, were not disclosed to the Income Tax Officer. According to the petitioners, the seized articles were duly shown in the books of accounts of the petitioners and disclosed in the Returns of Income Tax filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 and thus, the provision of section 132A of the Act was not applicable.application challenging the issue of notice under section 132A of the Act. The prime ground taken is that as the petitioners are regular assessees and they are co-operating with the Income Tax Department, there was no reason to believe that the silver articles, which were seized by the respondent No.4 on February 14, 2011, were not disclosed to the Income Tax Officer. According to the petitioners, the seized articles were duly shown in the books of accounts of the petitioners and disclosed in the Returns of Income Tax filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 and thus, the provision of section 132A of the Act was not applicable. 2.21 The petitioners further contended that they had explained the source of silver articles, which are in the custody of the respondent No.4 and were ready and willing to give any further information that might be demanded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, till the date of filing of the present petition, no notice or summons of any inquiry has been issued after the issue of warrant of authorization dated February 16, 2011.the source of silver articles, which are in the custody of the respondent No.4 and were ready and willing to give any further information that might be demanded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, till the date of filing of the present petition, no notice or summons of any inquiry has been issued after the issue of warrant of authorization dated February 16, 2011. 2.22 According to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate, while acquitting the petitioners of the charges held that the seized silver ornaments were in the possession of the petitioners while doing business of sale of silver ornaments and that they were the owners of the said articles. The petitioners further contend that the silver ornaments seized are the stock-in-trade of the petitioners according to the stock register maintained by them, and as such, there was no justification of issuing the notice impugned in this writ-application.acquitting the petitioners of the charges held that the seized silver ornaments were in the possession of the petitioners while doing business of sale of silver ornaments and that they were the owners of the said articles. The petitioners further contend that the silver ornaments seized are the stock-in-trade of the petitioners according to the stock register maintained by them, and as such, there was no justification of issuing the notice impugned in this writ-application. 2.23 The petitioners thus contend that the authorization issued by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Act is without any jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of CBDT circulars and was issued in gross violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Act is without any jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of CBDT circulars and was issued in gross violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 2.24 Apart from the aforesaid contentions, the petitioners have further contended that the action taken under section 132A of the Act to receive possession of the silver ornaments/articles, which are in custody of the respondent No.4, can be put into action only if clause (c) of section 132A(1) of the Act is attracted. According to them, in the instant case, the said provision being not attracted, the further contended that the action taken under section 132A of the Act to receive possession of the silver ornaments/articles, which are in custody of the respondent No.4, can be put into action only if clause (c) of section 132A(1) of the Act is attracted. According to them, in the instant case, the said provision being not attracted, the authorization issued by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Act is patently illegal. 2.25 The petitioners have further contended that at the time of issue of the impugned warrant, the silver articles/ornaments were in the possession of the Criminal Court and, therefore, jurisdiction under section 132A of the Act could not have been exercised, as the concerned Criminal Court is not an officer or authority within the meaning of section 132 A of the Act.issue of the impugned warrant, the silver articles/ornaments were in the possession of the Criminal Court and, therefore, jurisdiction under section 132A of the Act could not have been exercised, as the concerned Criminal Court is not an officer or authority within the meaning of section 132 A of the Act. 3. The application is opposed by the Income Tax authorities by filing affidavit-in-reply and the contentions raised by the Income Tax authorities can be epitomized thus:filing affidavit-in-reply and the contentions raised by the Income Tax authorities can be epitomized thus: 3.1 Senior Police Officer, Pardi, vide his letter dated February 14, 2012, informed the Income Tax Department that there had been a seizure of 233.591 kgs of silver ornaments from three persons, viz. Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat [the petitioner No.2] Duryodhan Neminath Firgal and Ismail Mahboob Mullah, who were not carrying any bills, vouchers etc. of the seized silver ornaments/articles.14, 2012, informed the Income Tax Department that there had been a seizure of 233.591 kgs of silver ornaments from three persons, viz. Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat [the petitioner No.2] Duryodhan Neminath Firgal and Ismail Mahboob Mullah, who were not carrying any bills, vouchers etc. of the seized silver ornaments/articles. 3.2 Statements of the abovementioned three persons were recorded under section 131 of the Act on February 14, 2011 and February 15, 2011 regarding source, acquisition and ownership of the seized silver ornaments/articles. The persons were found carrying the silver ornaments/articles in a hidden compartment in their car without any documentary proof, such as, bills etc. recorded under section 131 of the Act on February 14, 2011 and February 15, 2011 regarding source, acquisition and ownership of the seized silver ornaments/articles. The persons were found carrying the silver ornaments/articles in a hidden compartment in their car without any documentary proof, such as, bills etc. 3.3 During the course of recording of statement, Duryodhan Neminath Firgal and Ismail Mahboob Mullah admitted that Neminath Firgal and Ismail Mahboob Mullah admitted that the said seized articles belonged to Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat and they were merely accompanying him. 3.3 During the course of recording of statement, Duryodhan Neminath Firgal and Ismail Mahboob Mullah admitted that Neminath Firgal and Ismail Mahboob Mullah admitted that the said seized articles belonged to Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat and they were merely accompanying him. 3.4 Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat stated that the seized silver ornaments/articles belonged to him and his family members but he was unable to furnish any documentary evidence to prove the source, acquisition or ownership of the seized silver. In his statement, he has stated that he was carrying the said goods for sale to customers in Rajasthan and that he used to issue bills to customers at the time of sale. However, he was not found to be carrying any bill book for this purpose.ornaments/articles belonged to him and his family members but he was unable to furnish any documentary evidence to prove the source, acquisition or ownership of the seized silver. In his statement, he has stated that he was carrying the said goods for sale to customers in Rajasthan and that he used to issue bills to customers at the time of sale. However, he was not found to be carrying any bill book for this purpose. 3.5 Senior Inspector of Police, Pardi Police Station, was requested, vide letter dated February 14, 2011, not to release the seized silver articles without prior notice or intimation to the Income Tax Department. requested, vide letter dated February 14, 2011, not to release the seized silver articles without prior notice or intimation to the Income Tax Department. 3.6 The concerned persons at the Maharashtra-Gujarat border made an inquiry with the Sales Tax Department regarding declaration of the seized silver at the time of entry from Maharashtra into Gujarat. It was informed that no such declaration was given at the border. made an inquiry with the Sales Tax Department regarding declaration of the seized silver at the time of entry from Maharashtra into Gujarat. It was informed that no such declaration was given at the border. 3.7 On February 16, 2012,the Income Tax Officer [Investigation] Unit-III Kolhapur at the address mentioned in PAN database conducted a commission inquiry at Kolhapur under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. As stated by Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat in the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, inquiry was also conducted at the shop from where the silver business was carried out. The shop was found to be closed. Sunil Vidyadhar Gaat, the brother of Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat, who is stated to be carrying on business with Sanjay Unit-III Kolhapur at the address mentioned in PAN database conducted a commission inquiry at Kolhapur under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. As stated by Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat in the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, inquiry was also conducted at the shop from where the silver business was carried out. The shop was found to be closed. Sunil Vidyadhar Gaat, the brother of Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat, who is stated to be carrying on business with Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat, was not present for inquiry. Inquiry regarding various aspects of silver business was made from Vidyadhar Gaat, the father of Sanjay Gaat. He was unable to produce books of accounts of the business or give any information on stock of silver and as to the fact whether books, bills etc. were maintained. He could not also provide any information about the ownership of the seized silver ornaments. Vidyadhar Gaat, was not present for inquiry. Inquiry regarding various aspects of silver business was made from Vidyadhar Gaat, the father of Sanjay Gaat. He was unable to produce books of accounts of the business or give any information on stock of silver and as to the fact whether books, bills etc. were maintained. He could not also provide any information about the ownership of the seized silver ornaments. 3.8 On February 16, 2011, a warrant of requisition was issued under section 132A of the Act, after recording of satisfaction note on the issue. The same was served on Senior Police Inspector of Pardi Police Station on February 17, 2011 with a request to handover the custody of unaccounted silver ornaments/articles weighing 233.591 kgs to the Income Tax Department for further investigation.under section 132A of the Act, after recording of satisfaction note on the issue. The same was served on Senior Police Inspector of Pardi Police Station on February 17, 2011 with a request to handover the custody of unaccounted silver ornaments/articles weighing 233.591 kgs to the Income Tax Department for further investigation. 3.9 No documentary evidence was produced by the persons carrying silver ornaments/articles in response to inquiries made at the time of recording of statements under section131 of the Act on February 14, 2011 and February 15, 2011 to establish source, acquisition and ownership of the said silver articles. carrying silver ornaments/articles in response to inquiries made at the time of recording of statements under section131 of the Act on February 14, 2011 and February 15, 2011 to establish source, acquisition and ownership of the said silver articles. 3.10 According to Sanjay Vidyadhar Gaat, 185 kgs., out of 233.591 kgs of silver ornaments/articles seized, belonged to him and his brother Sunil Vidyadhar Gaat but he was unable to identify the ownership of the remaining silver ornaments/articles. Even in respect of his claim of ownership of 185 kgs of silver ornaments/articles, he did not produce any documentary evidence. In response to query No.17 regarding bills etc., he submitted that they were not sure how much silver the customers would be purchased from 233.591 kgs of silver ornaments/articles seized, belonged to him and his brother Sunil Vidyadhar Gaat but he was unable to identify the ownership of the remaining silver ornaments/articles. Even in respect of his claim of ownership of 185 kgs of silver ornaments/articles, he did not produce any documentary evidence. In response to query No.17 regarding bills etc., he submitted that they were not sure how much silver the customers would be purchased from them; hence, they were not carrying the bills. 3.11 On the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the respondent concerned had bona fide belief as required under section 132A of the Act for issue of notice and the contentions raised by the petitioners were not tenable in the eye of law.concerned had bona fide belief as required under section 132A of the Act for issue of notice and the contentions raised by the petitioners were not tenable in the eye of law. 4. The petitioners filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1 thereby denying the statement made by the respondent authorities and virtually reiterating the case made out in the writ-petition.reply filed by the respondent No.1 thereby denying the statement made by the respondent authorities and virtually reiterating the case made out in the writ-petition. 4. The petitioners filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1 thereby denying the statement made by the respondent authorities and virtually reiterating the case made out in the writ-petition.reply filed by the respondent No.1 thereby denying the statement made by the respondent authorities and virtually reiterating the case made out in the writ-petition. 5. Mr. Karia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners laboriously contended before us that both his clients being Income Tax Assessees and the seized silver having been disclosed in their accounts submitted before the Income Tax Officer, there was no justification of proceeding under section 132A of the Act. According to Mr. Karia, his clients were and are ready to answer all queries and supply all required information that will be demanded by the income tax authorities, if the income tax authorities so desire. Mr. Karia further contends that those articles being stock-in-trade of his clients, the seizure of those articles amounted to violation of their fundamental rights to carry on business. Mr. Karia further contents that his clients are ready and willing to give security of the proposed assessed tax as may be suggested by the respondent authorities in this regard in this Court subject to final decision of the authorities under the Act.petitioners laboriously contended before us that both his clients being Income Tax Assessees and the seized silver having been disclosed in their accounts submitted before the Income Tax Officer, there was no justification of proceeding under section 132A of the Act. According to Mr. Karia, his clients were and are ready to answer all queries and supply all required information that will be demanded by the income tax authorities, if the income tax authorities so desire. Mr. Karia further contends that those articles being stock-in-trade of his clients, the seizure of those articles amounted to violation of their fundamental rights to carry on business. Mr. Karia further contents that his clients are ready and willing to give security of the proposed assessed tax as may be suggested by the respondent authorities in this regard in this Court subject to final decision of the authorities under the Act. 5.1 Mr. Karia lastly contended that the notice under section132A of the Act was itself bad as the same was issued at a point of time when the silver articles were in the custody of the Court, and thus, the notice should be set aside on that section132A of the Act was itself bad as the same was issued at a point of time when the silver articles were in the custody of the Court, and thus, the notice should be set aside on that ground alone. 5.1 Mr. Karia lastly contended that the notice under section132A of the Act was itself bad as the same was issued at a point of time when the silver articles were in the custody of the Court, and thus, the notice should be set aside on that section132A of the Act was itself bad as the same was issued at a point of time when the silver articles were in the custody of the Court, and thus, the notice should be set aside on that ground alone. 6. Mr. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Karia and has contended that having regard to the materials available on record, there is no justification of branding the notice as a mala fide one. Mr. Bhatt contends that the requisition was made to the police authorities when the same was in the custody of the police and thus, the contention of Mr. Karia that the notice is illegal is not tenable. Mr. Bhatt further contends that within the narrow scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not pass any order, which would prevent the Income Tax authorities from proceeding in accordance with law. Mr. Bhatt contends that all the formalities required under the Income Tax Act for issue of notice under section 132A having been complied with, this Court should dismiss the writ-application.Revenue, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Karia and has contended that having regard to the materials available on record, there is no justification of branding the notice as a mala fide one. Mr. Bhatt contends that the requisition was made to the police authorities when the same was in the custody of the police and thus, the contention of Mr. Karia that the notice is illegal is not tenable. Mr. Bhatt further contends that within the narrow scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not pass any order, which would prevent the Income Tax authorities from proceeding in accordance with law. Mr. Bhatt contends that all the formalities required under the Income Tax Act for issue of notice under section 132A having been complied with, this Court should dismiss the writ-application. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this writ-applicant is whether the respondent authorities lawfully issued notice under section 132A of the Act.writ-applicant is whether the respondent authorities lawfully issued notice under section 132A of the Act. 8. In order to appreciate the questions involved in the writ-application, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in section 132 and 132A of the Act, which are quoted below:application, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in section 132 and 132A of the Act, which are quoted below: “132. Search and seizure (1)Where the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner 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 (11 of 1922) or under subsection (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or under subsection (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or under subsection (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or under subsection (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act, or has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act, or (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as the undisclosed income or property), then-jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as the undisclosed income or property), then- (A) the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, or (B) such Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, (the officer so authorised in all cases being hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) to -or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, (the officer so authorised in all cases being hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) to - (i) enter and search any building , place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept; vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept; (i) enter and search any building , place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept; vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept; ii) break open the look of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (i) where the keys thereof are not available;safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (i) where the keys thereof are not available; (iia) search any person who has got out of, or is about to get into, or is in, the building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if the authorised officer has reason to suspect that a such person has secreted about his person any such books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing;about to get into, or is in, the building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if the authorised officer has reason to suspect that a such person has secreted about his person any such books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing; (iib). require any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account possession or control of any books of account or other documents maintained in the form of electronic record as defined in clause (t) of sub-section(1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents; (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:documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search: provided that bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing being stock-in-trade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the authorised officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-in-trade of the business;valuable article or thing being stock-in-trade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the authorised officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-in-trade of the business; (iv) place marks of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies there from; account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies there from; (v) make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing: money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing: Provided that where any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft referred to in clause (i) is within the area of jurisdiction of any Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, but such Chief Commissioner or Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), then notwithstanding anything contained in section 120, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this sub-section in all cases where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such person may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: Provided that where any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft referred to in clause (i) is within the area of jurisdiction of any Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, but such Chief Commissioner or Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), then notwithstanding anything contained in section 120, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this sub-section in all cases where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such person may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: Provided further that where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of any valuable article or thing and remove it to a safe place due to its volume,weightorotherphysical characteristics or due to its being of a dangerous nature, the authorised officer may 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 authorised officer and such action of the authorised officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii): Provided also that nothing contained in the second proviso shall apply in case of any valuable article or thing, being stock-in-trade of the business: Provided also that no authorisation shall be issued by the Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner on or after the 1[st] day of October, 2009 unless he has been empowered by the Board to do so. Commissioner on or after the 1[st] day of October, 2009 unless he has been empowered by the Board to do so. (1A) Where any Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to suspect that any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing in respect of which an officer has been authorised by the Director General or D