In a scathing rebuke, the Gujarat High Court has criticized officials from the Income Tax Department for conducting a raid on an advocate’s premises in the absence of a warrant.
The court issued show cause notices to the concerned officials, directing them to provide an explanation for their actions by December 18.
The court expressed concern over the seizure of digital and physical files/documents belonging to one of the advocate’s clients and restrained the advocate from attending court for three days.
A division bench comprising Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta sternly directed the counsel of the I-T Department to return the seized documents and issue a public apology, emphasizing that only then would they be spared from further consequences.
The court questioned the authority of the Income Tax Department to confiscate documents from a professional without specifying the legal basis for such actions. Justice Karia remarked, “Please enlighten us on what provisions empower these officers to exercise such atrocious powers. If this conduct is allowed, then no professional would be safe in this country. We aren’t living in 1975 or ’76, where you can go anywhere and do whatever you want to. This isn’t a state of Emergency.”
Show cause notices were issued to seven I-T officers: Rakesh Ranjan, Dhrumil Bhatt, Neeraj Kumar Jogi, Vivek Kumar, Ranjeet Choudhary, Amit Kumar, and Toral Pansuria.
The court’s attention was drawn to the fact that the raid prevented the advocate from attending court for three days. Senior Advocate, representing the advocate, argued that this not only amounted to detention but also violated the right to privacy.
In response, the counsel representing the I-T Department contended that the seizure of documents was done properly, following the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 132 of the I-T Act.
The court observed that the document the officials were seeking was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to transactions involving the advocate’s client. The I-T Department claimed the document was “sensitive.”
The court also highlighted that the advocate was not served any notice before the raid, stating, “You (I-T Department) did not issue any notice to the petitioner. Then how could you record such satisfaction? This is not the correct approach. The department cannot resort to such conduct.”
In a broader context, the court’s stance reflects concerns about the potential misuse of powers by authorities and emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures even in sensitive matters.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
