Each time an ED officer waves a warrant, a GST official stalls a refund, or an Income-Tax inspector threatens a “best-judgement” order, an unseen meter clicks on: what will this delay cost, and who’s paying? In India’s tax-enforcement maze, vague phrases like “reason to believe” turn desks into toll booths, where a ₹70-thousand salary hides behind bribes worth crores.
One quick signature can freeze assets overnight—turning legal discretion into a loaded weapon aimed at businesses, ordinary taxpayers, and the public purse.
Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation – CLICK HERE
A look at how broad statutory powers—meant to combat economic crime—can, if weakly audited, morph into bargaining chips for bribery.
| Power Vested | Legal Provision | Discretion |
| Search & seizure | S.17 | An officer may act whenever he has written down “reasons to believe” that proceeds of crime exist—no judicial warrant required. |
| Arrest | S.19 | The same officer decides, on “material in his possession”, whether arrest is “necessary”. |
| Summons & compulsion | S.50 | ED can compel any person to produce documents or give evidence; non-compliance is an offence. |
| Power Vested | Legal Provision | Discretion |
| Inspection/ search/seizure | S. 67 | The Joint Commissioner may act on “reasons to believe” without prior warrant. |
| Arrest | S.69(+S.132 offences) | The commissioner may arrest if he “has reasons to believe” that a listed offence is committed. |
| Provisional attachment | S. 83 | The commissioner may attach property whenever he “is of opinion” that it is “necessary to protect revenue”. |
| Key power | Statutory hook | Discretion trigger |
| Search & seizure | S.132 | Director/Principal Commissioner may authorise a search whenever “reason to believe” exists that income is concealed. |
| Best-judgement assessment | S. 144 | The Assessing Officer can finalise tax on his own estimate if the assessee “fails to comply”. |
| Provisional attachment | S. 281B | Any property may be attached during assessment if the AO “is of opinion” it is needed to secure revenue. |
| Position | Monthly pay (approx.) | Bribe trapped | Multiple of pay |
| ED Assistant Director | ₹70 k | ₹2 crore | 2,857× |
| GST Deputy Commissioner | ₹67 k | ₹2 lakh | 3.35× |
| IT Commissioner | ₹51 k | ₹70 lakh | 1,372× |
Entrepreneurs face extortionary bargaining or prolonged investigations; honest officers work under a cloud of suspicion; taxpayers shoulder compliance delays and a hidden “corruption surcharge”.
Yet thousands of diligent ED, GST and Income-Tax officials continue to serve with integrity—this analysis targets the structural vulnerabilities, not the entire cadre.
| Vulnerability | Possible fix |
| Subjective “reason to believe” test | Mandatory contemporaneous recording of reason disclosed to an in-house judicial officer before arrest. |
| Solo-officer attachment/arrest power | Introduce pre-action review by an independent multi-member panel (akin to a magistrate warrant). |
| Discretionary assessments | Expand e-assessment and algorithmic allocation, cutting one-to-one contact. |
| Low probability of detection | Strengthen internal affairs units; rotate sensitive postings; publish annual action-taken reports. |
Case 1: The Businessman’s Dilemma
A Kollam-based businessman faced immense pressure when ED officials allegedly demanded a ₹2 crore bribe to drop a money laundering investigation. The stress and fear of legal repercussions led him to report the incident, resulting in the arrest of intermediaries.
In May 2025, a significant corruption scandal emerged in Kerala, involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Aneesh Babu, a Kollam-based cashew exporter, alleged that he was coerced into paying a ₹2 crore bribe to halt an ED investigation into his business activities. The primary accused in this case is Shekhar Kumar, an Assistant Director at the ED’s Kochi office.
According to Aneesh, after receiving a summons from the ED in 2024 regarding alleged financial irregularities, he was approached by Wilson Varghese, who claimed to represent ED officials. Wilson demanded ₹2 crore to settle the case and even arranged for another ED summons to reinforce his credibility. Suspicious of these demands, Aneesh reported the matter to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts – CLICK HERE
The VACB set up a sting operation, and on May 16, 2025, Wilson was caught red-handed accepting ₹2 lakh in marked currency from Aneesh. Further investigations led to the arrests of Mukesh Kumar, who facilitated a prior ₹50,000 bank transfer, and chartered accountant Ranjith Warrier, who allegedly connected Wilson to Aneesh. The VACB named Shekhar Kumar as the first accused based on the complaint and subsequent findings.
The ED, however, dismissed the allegations as baseless, asserting that Aneesh was attempting to derail an ongoing money laundering investigation against him. They claimed that Aneesh had evaded multiple summonses and was using these allegations to malign the agency’s image.
As investigations continue, the public awaits clarity on the veracity of the allegations and the integrity of the institutions involved.
Case 2: The Taxpayer’s Ordeal
In Noida, a local businessman was coerced into paying a ₹45,000 bribe to a GST officer to resolve a pending tax assessment.
A GST officer in Noida was arrested for accepting a ₹45,000 bribe. The officer, Satendra Bahadur Singh, was caught red-handed by the Vigilance Team from the Meerut Sector on May 19, 2025.
The complainant, Pramod Tiwari, a local businessman, reported that he had been approached by an individual named Bhudev, who claimed that Tiwari’s tax assessments for 2016-17 and 2017-18 were pending, with an outstanding amount of ₹4.55 lakh. Bhudev threatened legal action if the dues were not cleared. Subsequently, Tiwari met with Singh, who demanded a ₹50,000 bribe to settle the matter.
Instead of complying, Tiwari approached the Vigilance Department, which organized a sting operation. During the operation, Singh was apprehended while accepting ₹45,000 from Tiwari. A case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a departmental inquiry was initiated against Singh.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS – CLICK HERE
Statutory discretion is essential for agile economic-crime fighting, but unless tethered to transparent guard-rails and rigorous audit, it too easily transforms into a private revenue stream—one that dwarfs official salaries and corrodes public trust.
Note: The above story is based on reported incidents and aims to shed light on one of the motives of corruption within enforcement agencies. The details are drawn from credible news sources and official reports.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
