HINDUSTAN METAL WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are connected together as they raise a common question of law. A learned Single Judge, before whom these petitions were listed for hearing, has referred them to a large Bench for decision. They have been listed before us for hearing.

(2.) THE petitioners in the Writ Petition Nos. 3605, 3606 and 3607 are interconnected. Mrs. Uma Lal is the wife of Sri Ram Babu Lal. He is the brother of Messrs. Tara Chand Agrawala and Jawahar Lal. He is the managing director of the company. Mrs. Uma Lal and Messrs. Tara Chand Agrawala and Jawahar Lal are the partners of the firm.

(3.) THE allegations in the three cases are similar. Accordingly, we shall take up the Writ Petition No. 3605 of 1963 as the leading case. THE allegations in this petition are that the firm has always been paying income-tax regularly, that it has always produced such documents and account-books, etc., as were demanded by the Income-tax authorities and that it has never been found guilty o evasion of its tax liability. On July 2, 1963, the premises of the firm were searched by the respondents Nos. 2 to 10, the other employees of the income-tax department and some policemen. THE houses of Sri Ram Babu Lal and his wife and Sri Ram Babu Lals house was also searched on July 6, 1963. THE premises of the company were also searched on July 2, 1963. THE search was arbitrary and indiscriminate. THE respondents seized a large number of documents arbitrarily and indiscriminately without any regard to their relevancy. THE search was mala fide and on the instigation of one Heera Lal, who was inimical to Sri Ram Babu Lal. THE Commissioner of Income-tax authorised the search without applying his mind to the fact whether it was necessary. He did not record any reasons for authorising the search. He authorised the search on the behest of the Directorate of Inspection (the Central Board of Revenue), Delhi, No inventory of the seized materials was prepared.