Calcutta High Court
Vijay Pahwa vs Samir Mukhopadhyay, Deputy ... on 5 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: [2001]250ITR354(CAL)
JUDGMENT
1. On April 17, 1995, certain income-tax authorities visited the chamber of Dr. Vijay Pahwa, an eye surgeon being the writ petitioner, purporting to conduct a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. A document has been produced in court, which has been kept countersigned by my officer, which shows that there was no obstruction put by Dr. Pahwa or any facility withheld by him from allowing a survey to be made.
3. The officers conducted a survey. Clothed with the large powers given to them by the Income-tax Act as amended up to date, they started acting in a manner people do in autocratic countries where there is no check on petty Government officials.
4. Apparently, they immediately served on April 17, 1995, itself summons upon Dr. Pahwa for production of documents. Such summons can be served under Section 131(1) only in the case of obstruction by the person concerned or when some sort of hindrance is put up by him. The summons was immediately executed on the same day within 30 minutes or so. All the books of Dr. Pahwa reached the income-tax office. Immediately thereafter those books were impounded at the office of the income-tax authorities. All this happened on April 17, 1995.
5. Dr. Pahwa's assessments are complete and up to date. There is no pending adjudication where the summoning power can be used at all. In any event, how can the summons be issued for production on the same day and the books instantaneously impounded ?
6. Now, there are other powers for search and seizure There are other powers for reopening of completed assessments These were not utilised. Under the garb of conducting a simple survey under Section 133A, the books of Dr. Pahwa were seized, without any apparent authority. The Income-tax Officers and authorities do not have any power to interrupt the ordinary peaceful citizens of the country in any manner they like by utilising the large powers given to them, without keeping strictly within the four corners of those large powers. Since the powers vested are large, even a millimetre of departure therefrom must be immediately shorn off by the impartial courts of law, if this country is to continue to remain a free one. In the instant case, there has not been merely one millimetre of departure but of several kilometres from within the permitted powers.
7. There will be interim orders in terms of prayer (e) the first alternative, and prayers (f) and (g). Since, the respondents have appeared no formal rule need be drawn up or served. Affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed within six weeks from date, affidavit-in-reply within three weeks thereafter and the matter to appear on the working day following. The above observations are without prejudice in the writ but Samir Mukhopadyay, respondent No. 1, who was the leader of the operation in the above apparently illegal procedure and high-handed actions, will personally pay today's costs to the writ petitioner assessed at Rs. 35,000 irrespective of the subsequent result of the writ. The costs should be paid within a fortnight from date hereof. If not paid, the same can be executed on the original side in the executing court on the basis of a copy of this dictated order subject to the pleasure of the learned judge taking up that list, or, at the choice of the writ petitioner by instituting a contempt proceeding in this court before me.
8. All parties and others concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on usual undertakings.