SARDAR PARDUMAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by Sardar Parduman Singh in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to the legality and validity of order dt. 24th Dec., 1985, passed under S. 132(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called "the Act"), restraining the petitioner and one Harish Chander from removing, parting with or otherwise dealing with property shop No. 235, Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, without his previous permission. On the same day, vide seizure memo (Annexure U), Shri P. L. Uppal A. D. I. (Investigation) sealed shop No. 235, Lajpat Rai Market. The search and seizure proceedings were conducted by Shri P. L. Uppal in the presence of Shri Parduman Singh and Shri Harish Chander. The seizure memo further in column 7 records as follows :

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that some time 1965 -66 he had entered into a partnership with Shri Kishan Chand and stated business in radios and transistors under the name and style of M/s. Lucky Electronics and that the said partnership was dissolved and the petitioner took over the business alongwith the shop and that he had been doing his business in the said shop since 1965 -66. The petitioner placed on record income -tax and sales tax assessment orders since 1971 to show that he has been doing business in the said shop since 1965 -66. He also produced on record a number of other documents to prove his possession of the shop. The contention of the petitioner is the necessary conditions under which action could be taken under S. 132 of the act to do not exist in this case and action of the respondent in sealing the shop and further passing the order dt. 24th Dec., 1985 (Annexure A), are wholly without legal authority and are liable to be struck down.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the petition, the counter -affidavit, the rejoinder affidavit and the other papers placed on the record and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order dt. 24th Dec., 1985, as well as the action of the respondents in sealing the shop are wholly illegal and without justification. Here we would discuss S. 132 of the Act, under which the impugned action have been taken. The relevant part of action 132 reads as follows :