K.K. Abdul Latheef and Another vs Deputy Director of Income Tax, Investigation and Others

G. Sivarajan, J.—The petitioners are the partners of Central Jewellery located at Door No. IX/1011, Vengara, Malappuram District. According to the petitioners, the partnership business is constituted on August 9, 1996, as per exhibit P-1 and the business was commenced from August 9, 1996, as per exhibits P-1 and P-2. There was a search of the business premises of "Central Jewellery" of which the petitioners are the partners, on November 21, 1996, by the Income Tax Department. Exhibit P-3 is the panchanama prepared by the fourth respondent containing the details of the recoveries effected pursuant to the search and seizure conducted on November 21, 1996. The second respondent initiated further proceedings and the petitioners have been co-operating with the Department in the matter. The second respondent on July 28, 1997, issued exhibit P-4 notice asking the firm for explanations and details in regard to certain matters. The petitioners were also required to be present to verify the transactions reflected in the books and the seized documents. It is at this stage the petitioners have filed this original petition for declaration that the search and seizure conducted by the fourth respondent in the business premises of the petitioners is illegal and void and also for quashing the exhibit P-4 notice. The grounds stated are that there was absolutely no justification for invoking the powers u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent had no reason to believe that the conditions under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act are violated, especially since the petitioners have started the business only on August 9, 1996. I have also heard Sri P.K.R. Menon, learned senior Central Government standing counsel. I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not made out any valid reason for assailing the search and seizure, the petitioners have approached this court after a long time, that too co-operating with the Department in the enquiry pursuant to the search and seizure made on November 21, 1996. I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, time granted to the petitioner for complying with the directions contained in exhibit P-4 notice is extended till August 29, 1997. The petitioners will appear before the second respondent at 11 a.m. on August 29, 1997. The petitioner will also file explanation, if any, and furnish other details called for in exhibit P-4 notice on or before August 29, 1997.

The original petition is dismissed with the above directions.