UNITED CHEMICAL AGENCY Vs. R K SINGH ITO

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.