Delhi High Court dismisses plea seeking to quash Warrant of Authorization and declare Search and Seizure illegal [Read Judgment]
![Delhi High Court dismisses plea seeking to quash Warrant of Authorization and declare Search and Seizure illegal [Read Judgment]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Delhi-High-Court-plea-seeking-Warrant-of-Authorization-declare-Search-Seizure-illegal-Taxscan.jpeg "Delhi High Court dismisses plea seeking to quash Warrant of Authorization and declare Search and Seizure illegal [Read Judgment]")
The Delhi High Court quashed the plea seeking to dismiss the Warrant of Authorization (WoA) and declare search and seizure illegal. The petitioners, wife and husband, by way of separate writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, impugned the validity and legality of the search action initiated by the Respondent authority. The petitioner sough quashing of the...
The Delhi High Court quashed the plea seeking to dismiss the Warrant of Authorization (WoA) and declare search and seizure illegal.
The petitioners, wife and husband, by way of separate writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, impugned the validity and legality of the search action initiated by the Respondent authority.
The petitioner sough quashing of the impugned Warrant of Authorization; declaration that the search and seizure, conducted on them is illegal, void and without authority of law, and the exercise is without jurisdiction; direction to the Respondents to release the entire material and valuables seized under the search action; and quashing of the notices issued under Sections 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The revenue contended that the petition is barred by delay and laches. Had the Petitioners felt aggrieved, the search warrant should have been challenged around the time of search activity, or around the time of receipt of the notice for assessment proceedings under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act.
The revenue submitted in the assessment notice, the Petitioner was directed to file his return of income within the statutory time limit of 15 days. Petitioners chose not to file the same, then stayed silent for the next 4 months, and have now approached the Court after more than 18 months from the date of the alleged cause of action.
The revenue argued that the Petitioners have wrongly perceived that the search and seizure action against them has originated under Section 132(1A) of the Act, whereas search was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Act. This understanding forms the basis of the misguided grounds of challenge raised in the Petition.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula have only examined the legal validity of the WoA and found that the exercise of power was authorised on the basis of requisite belief as per the mandate of the Act.
