Case Law Details
Shiva Cement Limited Vs Director of Income Tax (Inv.) (Orissa High Court)
It is trite that under Section 132(1) of the Act, the jurisdictional facts should be established by the Department to justify a search authorization. But there cannot be any presumption that there is no such information available with the Department. The observations by the Delhi High Court that the information which forms the basis of such search operation must be based on credible information and there must be a nexus between the information and the search ordered are unexceptionable. To the same effect, the decision in Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (supra), where the Gujarat High Court found in favour of the Assessee after perusing the satisfaction note. Whether the legal requirement is met will obvious depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, there can be no presumption in this regard in the absence of the original record of the search in regard to which the Petitioners have not made any request to this Court. In any event, there is sufficient opportunity available to the Petitioners in this regard at the further stages, if any, of these proceedings.
Consequently, the Court is not satisfied that any ground is made out by either of the Petitioners for grant of any of the reliefs as prayed for at this stage. Although the Court has expressed its prima facie view on the legal and factual issues raised, on the insistence of the Petitioners, it is clarified that after the assessment orders are received and if the Petitioners are aggrieved thereby, it would be open to them to urge all the grounds raised in the present petitions, apart from any further grounds they may have, before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. These two writ petitions arise out of a common set of facts and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
