SWASTIK GEAR LTD Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, public limited companies, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,, 1956, and petitioner No. 3, a partnership firm, are allied concerns of Q.S.T. Groups of Kanpur and petitioner No. 4 is the manager, accounts, of the said group. On January 15, 1987, a search was conducted by the Income-tax Department at different places of Q.S.T. Groups including the premises of the petitioners and various account books were seized for which seizure a memo was prepared and issued to the petitioners. Admittedly, the Department retained the books for a period exceeding 180 days without obtaining the approval of the Commissioner for such retention within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). Thereupon, the petitioners filed this writ petition praying that the retention of the books beyond 180 days is absolutely illegal and the respondents be directed to return the account books forthwith.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioners made an application that the respondents started taking photostat copies from the account books illegally retained beyond 180 days. As no photostat copies or extracts were taken by the Department till the date of filing the writ petition, the petitioners stated that no prayer was made for issuing a direction to the respondents to return the photostat copies, extracts, etc., and hence an amendment is necessitated, since the mischief has been done subsequently, The petitioners, therefore, prayed that they be allowed to amend the writ petition and incorporate a new prayer No. 5 in the petition as follows :

(3.) In their counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioners never approached the Department to release the account books. However, it is stated that the seized books of account contained information and details regarding concealment of income and tax evasion by the petitioners to the tune of several crores of rupees. In para. 12 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents contended :