SHYAM JEWELLERS Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Shyam Jewellers and its proprietor have filed these writ petitions claiming various reliefs against the Income-tax Department and the action taken by it which, according to the petitioner, is against propriety and legality and which has caused huge loss and is the result of mala fide and calculated action.

(2.) THE first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 6218 of 1987) is against the action to seal off the petitioner's shop and the notice which has been pasted over the shop. THE petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction for quashing the order contained in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition and have further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the first information report (annexure No. 1). In the second Writ Petition No. 22 of 1988, the original relief was for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the opposite parties to restore the articles, etc., to the petitioners, which were seized and to declare the sealing of the shop as illegal and without jurisdiction. THE petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the effect that the ornamental articles seized by the opposite parties were not liable to be seized ; and further for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the authorisation to the Income-tax Officer under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(3.) REFERENCE to the happenings on August 31, 1987, has been made by the petitioners. It has been stated that, on that date, six persons rushed to the shop of the petitioners without disclosing their identity and they started threatening the petitioners. The petitioners, however, did not stop such persons from carrying on survey of the shop but required them to disclose their identity and enquired from them as to which Department they belonged and asked them as to why they were using abusive language when the petitioners have always been complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. It has further been stated by the petitioners that, in the meantime, many persons, including owners of a few shops, collected at the spot and they requested the visiting team to disclose their identity but they, instead of disclosing their identity, threatened the petitioners to close down the firm and the business at Aminabad. It has been stated that, when the aforesaid persons did not find anything illegal in the shops, they, without disclosing their identity, left the shop. The petitioner, after 7closing down the shop at 7.30 p.m. on August 31, 1987, left for his residence. It has further been stated that in the midnight of August 31, 1987, the petitioner No. 2 and his employees and a number of persons of the vicinity received information that a number of shops have been closed down by putting seal over the locks and this was done by the officers of the Income-tax Department with the help of the police of the police station, Aminabad. The petitioners tried to know the reason on account of which the shops were sealed off but could not get any clear answer, but, ultimately, the petitioners received a copy of a first information report containing certain allegations against a number of persons as a result of which their shops were sealed off. The first information report was lodged at 10.30 p.m. in the night of Augtist 31, 1987, in which it has been stated that, while making survey, the petitioners and other persons badly dealt with the officers and officials and thus the petitioners committed breach of Section 133A of the Income-tax Act. Even in the first information report, it was not stated that petitioner No. 2, the proprietor of petitioner No. 1, in any way opposed the survey. It has been alleged that objections were made by petitioner No. 2 to the effect that as there was an apprehension of terrorists entering the shop and taking away goods and articles and money, the persons entering the shop must disclose their identity. It has been stated that although the so-called survey was made at 11 a.m., the first information report was lodged at 1.30 p.m. which, according to the petitioner, was lodged after ten hours. On September 1, 1987, on the shutter of the shop an order was found pasted which was alleged to have been passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax purporting to have been passed, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub-section (3) of Section 132 of the Act. But even after the expiry of one week, the shop continued to remain sealed off with the result that the petitioner had to incur heavy losses. Ultimately, the petitioners were compelled to file a writ petition before this court on September 7, 1987. Notice of the writ petition was given to the departmental counsel who placed the notice dated September 7, 1987, before the court which reads as under :