Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Shri Deep Narayan Sinha
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Shri Deep Narayan Sinha
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Mahabir Prosad Poddar, a sole proprietor of New Bengal Syndicate, Indian Agency and Bharat Kala Mandir, had his office at 62, Bentinck Street, Calcutta, his residence at 14/1, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, and a chamber at 3, Bysak Dighi Lane. On 30 August 1965 officers of the income-tax department, acting under warrants of authorisation issued under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted searches at the petitioner's office, chamber and residence and seized a large number of books, documents and papers.

Some seized items were returned to the petitioner on 3 February 1966, 10 February 1966 and 15 February 1966. The petitioner contended that a large number of documents remained in the custody of the respondents despite repeated requests for their return, and he challenged the continued retention of those books and documents by the income-tax authorities.

At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Asoke Banerjee, confined the challenge to the lawfulness of retention beyond 180 days under Section 132(8) of the Act. The respondents filed an affidavit by Padmanabha Pradhan stating that reasons for retention had been recorded and the Commissioner's approval obtained, but there was no affidavit assertion that these reasons and the approval had been communicated to the petitioner. The revenue's counsel, Mr. Dipak Sen, acknowledged that the department's records did not show any communication of the reasons or the approval to the petitioner. The court heard argument on whether the absence of such communication rendered the retention invalid.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, under Section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, books and documents seized may be lawfully retained beyond 180 days only if the authorised officer records reasons in writing and obtains the approval of the Commissioner.
  2. Whether the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer and the approval of the Commissioner must be communicated to the person from whose custody the books were seized in order for the retention beyond 180 days to be valid and for that person to be able to exercise the right of objection under Section 132(10) and the Board's powers under Section 132(12).
  3. Whether the Commissioner's approval under Section 132(8) is a prior approval (to be granted before reasons are recorded) or a subsequent approval (given after reasons are recorded), and the legal significance of that characterization for the requirement of communication.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Asoke Banerjee)

  • Section 132(8) permits retention beyond 180 days only if reasons are recorded in writing by the authorised officer and the Commissioner approves such retention.
  • Section 132(10) gives a person entitled to the books a statutory right to object to the Commissioner's approval and seek return of the books; Section 132(12) gives the Board power to hear and decide such objections.
  • Unless the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner's approval are communicated to the person affected, that person cannot effectively exercise the right conferred by Section 132(10), rendering that statutory right nugatory.
  • Authorities such as Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Nripendra Nath Mazumdar v. N. M. Bardhan support the proposition that a decision or order affecting a person's rights must be communicated to that person to be binding.

Revenue's Arguments (Mr. Dipak Sen)

  • The statutory conditions in Section 132(8) are that the authorised officer must record reasons and obtain the Commissioner's approval; Section 132(10) confers the right to object only to the Commissioner's approval and not to the reasons recorded by the officer.
  • It was suggested that the Commissioner's approval could be a prior approval (i.e., not necessarily containing specific reasons) rather than an approval of already-recorded reasons.
  • The statutory language distinguishes between actions that are "orders" and those that are not; Section 132(8) does not use the word "order" (unlike ss.132(5) and 132(11)), and so the requirement of communication may not apply in the same way.
  • The revenue relied on Charandas Malhotra v. Assistant Collector of Customs (construing Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962) for the proposition that seized property may be presumed to remain under seizure until released and that vested rights to return may be subject to different treatment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (Supreme Court) Held that for an opinion/decision of the State Government (or authority) to amount to a binding decision, it must be communicated to the person concerned; until communication the decision remains provisional. The court applied this principle to hold that even if the retention decision under Section 132(8) were regarded as a "decision" rather than a formal "order", it still had to be communicated to the person affected before it could bind him.
Nripendra Nath Mazumdar v. N. M. Bardhan (Calcutta High Court) Summarised legal propositions that an order affecting rights must be communicated to the affected person to be complete and effective, with limited exceptions (presence, prior notice, obstruction by the party, or inability of authority despite reasonable efforts). The court relied on these propositions to support the conclusion that the approval or order permitting retention beyond 180 days must be communicated to the petitioner for it to be effective.
Charandas Malhotra v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service (Calcutta High Court) Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, where a vested right to obtain return of goods seized has accrued, that right can only be taken away after notice and hearing. The court considered the decision but distinguished it: it held that the Customs Act provision did not appear to be in pari materia with Section 132 of the Income-tax Act and therefore the decision was of no assistance to the revenue in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded step-by-step and confined its analysis to the retention issue under Section 132(8) as argued at the hearing:

  1. Statutory text and initial facts: Section 132(8) authorises retention of books seized under Section 132(1) beyond 180 days only if the authorised officer records reasons in writing and obtains the Commissioner's approval. The petition alleged that 180 days expired (the petition states this date as 26 February 1966) without any recorded reasons or notice of approval being communicated to the petitioner. The respondents' affidavit asserted that reasons were recorded and approval taken, but did not state that those reasons or the approval had been communicated to the petitioner; the revenue's counsel acknowledged no such communication appears in the department records.
  2. Practical effect of non-communication and interaction with other subsections: The court examined Sections 132(10) and 132(12), which give a person entitled to seized books a right to object to the Commissioner's approval and to have the Board hear the objection. The court found that unless the person affected is informed of the reasons and the Commissioner's approval, the statutory right to object under Section 132(10) cannot be meaningfully exercised, rendering that statutory remedy ineffectual.
  3. Interpretation debates and the communication requirement: The revenue argued that the Commissioner's approval might be a prior approval and that Section 132(8) does not use the word "order", distinguishing it from other subsections. The court observed that even if approval were a prior approval, that fact does not assist the revenue: the legislature has given the affected person a right to object to the Commissioner's approval, and that right presupposes communication of the approval so that an objection can be taken. Accordingly, communication of at least the Commissioner's approval must be read into Section 132(8) in light of Sections 132(10) and 132(12).
  4. Reliance on authority and precedents: The court relied on Bachhittar Singh to emphasize the general rule that decisions or orders affecting rights must be communicated to the persons affected to be binding; the court similarly relied on the summary of principles in Nripendra Nath Mazumdar to support the proposition that an order affecting rights is not complete until communicated (subject to narrowly-defined exceptions which were not said to apply here).
  5. Distinguishing customs precedent: The revenue's reliance on Charandas Malhotra (construing the Customs Act) was considered but rejected as not being in pari materia with Section 132 of the Income-tax Act; the court did not accept the proposition that seized books are presumed to remain under seizure regardless of any communicative requirement as being applicable in this statutory context.
  6. Conclusion on facts: Because the respondents did not communicate the Commissioner's approval (nor the reasons) to the petitioner, the court held that the requirements of Section 132(8), properly construed in light of Sections 132(10) and 132(12) and relevant authorities, had not been complied with. As a result, the order (or decision) for retention beyond the statutory period did not become valid and effective. The opinion records both that the petition alleged 180 days expired on 26 February 1966 and the court's conclusion that there was no valid retention "beyond the 22nd February, 1966" (these dates appear in the text as stated).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application succeeds and the rule is made absolute.

Direct consequences for the parties (explicit in the opinion):

  • The court will issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith return to the petitioner all the books, documents, papers and things seized from premises No. 62, Bentinck Street, Calcutta; 3 Bysak Dighi Lane; and 14/1, Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta.
  • The respondents are at liberty to proceed according to law after returning the materials.
  • There will be no order as to costs.

Broader implications:

The court read a requirement of communication of the Commissioner's approval (and at least the fact of approval) into Section 132(8) in order to give practical effect to the right of objection under Section 132(10) and the Board's functions under Section 132(12). The opinion applies established principles that decisions/orders affecting rights must be communicated before they bind the affected person. The opinion itself does not state that it is laying down a novel binding precedent beyond its application of these principles to the facts before it.

Show full summary ...

    Mahabir Prosad Poddar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors.

    1. The petitioner, Mahabir Prosad Poddar, is the sole proprietor of (1) New Bengal Syndicate, (2) Indian Agency, (3) Bharat Kala Mandir. The petitioner has his office at premises No. 62, Bentinck Street, Calcutta, his residence at premises No. 14/1, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, and he also has a chamber at 3, Bysak Dighi Lane.

    2. On the 30th August, 1965, several officers of the income-tax department entered the office of the petitioner at 62, Bentinck Street, his chamber at 3, Bysak Dighi Lane, and his residence at 14/1, Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, armed with warrants of authorisation issued under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act"). After a prolonged search of the different premises, the officers seized a large number of books, documents and papers belonging to the petitioner.

    3. Some of the seized documents and papers were returned to the petitioner on the 3rd February, 1966, some others were returned on the 10th February, 1966, and some further documents and papers were returned on the 15th February, 1966.

    4. It is the case of the petitioner that a large number of documents and papers are still being kept by the respondents and have not been returned to the petitioner in spite of repeated representations in that behalf.

    5. It is this retention of the books, documents and papers by the income-tax authorities which is challenged before me in this application.

    6. Although several grounds have been taken challenging the search, seizure and retention of the books and documents in the present case, Mr. Asoke Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, confined his challenge to the retention of the books and documents on one ground at the time of the hearing. My attention was drawn to Section 132(8) of the Act which provides that books of account and other documents which have been seized under Section 132(1) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of seizure unless reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Commissioner is obtained for such retention.

    7. Mr. Banerjee next drew my attention to paragraph 14 of the petition where it has been stated, inter alia, as follows :

    " Your petitioner further states that 180 days expired after the said seizure on the 26th February, 1966, but no reason for retaining the said documents, account books and things of your petitioner have been recorded in writing by the respondents Nos. 2 to 8. In any event, no notice of any such reasons having been recorded and no notice of the ground or reasons for the approval of respondent No. 1 for such retention and no copy of the order of respondent No. 1 giving the approval has been given to your petitioner which the said respondents are bound to give,"

    8. These allegations have been dealt with in paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Padmanabha Pradhan affirmed on the 8th July, 1966, in the following terms :

    "With regard to paragraph 14 of the petition, I crave leave to refer to the records of the income-tax department and further state that the documents of Ram Karan Poddar were retained Which were useful for the income-tax proceedings against him. The said documents have been retained after recording the reasons for the same and after taking the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III."

    9. There is, however, no statement in the affidavit of Padmanabha Pradhan that the recording of reasons by the Income-tax Officer or the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax was ever communicated to the petitioner, Mahabir Prosad Poddar. In fact, it was stated before me by Mr. Dipak Sen, appearing on behalf of the revenue, that no such communication appears from the records of the income-tax department. Consequently, the arguments before me proceeded on the above state of facts.

    10. Mr. Banerjee submitted that the person from whose custody the books, documents and papers had been seized is entitled under the law to be communicated the reasons of the Income-tax Officer and the approval of the Commissioner under Section 132(8) of the Act.

    11. In support this contention, Mr. Banerjee drew my attention to Section 132(10) of the Act which provides that if a person legally entitled to the books of account and other documents seized under Section 132(1) of the Act objects for any reasons to the approval given by the Commissioner under Sub-section (8) he can make an application to the Board stating therein his reasons for such objection and asking for the return of the books of account and other documents. Section 132(12) of the Act further provides that, on receipt of such an application, the Board may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit. It was submitted, on the strength of the above provisions, that unless the person who is entitled to the " return of the books is communicated the reasons for the retention beyond 180 days and the approval of the Commissioner, it would not be possible for him to prefer his objections under Section 132(10) of the Act. In other words, unless the requirement of communication of the reasons recorded by the officer and the approval of the Commissioner be read into the provisions of Section 132(8), the valuable statutory right conferred by Section 132(10) of the Act would be rendered entirelyjnugatory. Hence, Mr. Banerjee invited me to hold, on a proper interpretation of the scheme of the Section 132(8) read in the light of Sections 132(10) and 132(12), that it was incumbent on the authorities to communicate the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer in writing and the approval of the Commissioner to the person affected.

    12. Reliance was placed in this connection on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, . In that decision, it has been held by the Supreme Court that, in order that an opinion of the State Government can amount to a decision, it must be communicated to the person concerned. It is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State Government and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the authority concerned to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.

    13. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this court in the case of Nripendra Nath Mazumdar v. N. M. Bardhan, . In that case Sinha J. (as he then was), after a, review of several decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, summed up the legal propositions with regard to the making of an order and the communication thereof in the following words :

    " In my opinion the position may be summed up as follows :

    (1) An order may be taken to be made on the date it came into existence, if the nature of the order is such that it is not necessary to communicate it to anyone. It is easy to see that only very few orders will satisfy this test.

    (2) If an order is made which affects the rights of a person, then the order must be communicated to such person in order to be complete and effective. The date of the order is the date when it is made known to the affected party. To this, however, there are certain exceptions, which are as follows :

    (i) Where the order is made in the presence of the party, whose right has been affected.

    (ii) Where notice has been given to the party affected by the order to be present at the announcement, but in spite of such notice, he fails to be present. Where the method of giving notice is prescribed, e.g., by publication in the Gazette, compliance with the same will be deemed sufficient, as also in a case where the law presumes knowledge.

    (iii) Where owing to the obstruction of the party affected himself, the order cannot be communicated within a reasonable time.

    (iv) Where the authority making the order has, in spite of reasonable efforts, been unable to serve the order within a reasonable time or at all. In such a case, the date of making of the order is the date of the order.

    (3) Barring these exceptions, the law is that an order which affects the interests of a person cannot be said to be effectively made until it has been brought to his notice."

    14. Relying on the above decisions, Mr. Banerjee argued that, even on general principles, I should hold that since the order of retention oi books and documents beyond the period of 180 days in the present case affects the rights of the petitioner, the order does not become complete and effective, until it is communicated to the petitioner. Since there is no complete and effective order for retention of the books and documents under Section 132(8) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to the return of the books and documents on this ground alone.

    15. Mr. Dipak Sen appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted in the first place that the power of the Income-tax Officer to retain the books and documents beyond the period of 180 days was fettered by two conditions, viz., (1) he must record the reasons for such retention in writing, and (2) he must obtain an approval of the Commissioner for such retention. Section 132(10), it was said, gives a right to prefer an objection only against the approval of the Commissioner but not against the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer in writing. It was, however, not disputed by Mr. Sen that neither the approval of the Commissioner nor the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer have been communicated to the petitioner in the present case.

    16. Certain controversies were raised before me as to whether the approval of the Commissioner under Section 132(8) means prior approval before the reasons are recorded or a subsequent approval of the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer. Mr. Sen invited me to hold that such approval is a prior approval and need not contain any specific reasons in support of such approval. Mr. Banerjee contended that such approval must be subsequent to the recording of the reasons by the Income-tax Officer to which the highest officer in the hierarchy would be granting his approval after properly applying his mind thereto.

    17. Even if I accept the contention of Mr. Sen that the approval of the Commissioner is a prior approval, without expressing any final opinion on this question, I do not see how it is of any assistance to the revenue in the present case. After all, the legislature has conferred a valuable right of preferring objections against the approval of the Commissioner to a higher authority, viz., the Board. Unless the person affected is communicated with the fact of the approval by the Commissioner and the grounds of such approval, I do not see how the valuable right under Section 132(10) of the Act can be exercised. In other words, having regard to the provisions of Section 132(10) and 132(12) of the Act, the communication of at least the approval of the Commissioner must necessarily be read into the provisions of Section 132(8) of the Act. Since no such communication was made in the instant case, it must be held that the provisions of Section 132(8) on a proper construction thereof, have not been complied with. Hence, the order of retention of the books and documents under Section 132(8) of the Act has not become valid and effective.

    18. Mr. Sen next submitted that the scheme of Section 132 of the Act makes a distinction between certain actions of the income-tax authorities which amount to an order and certain others which do not amount to an order. Reference was made in this connection to Sections 132(5) and 132(11) which use the expression " order ". It was pointed out that Section 132(8) however does not use the expression " order " in terms.

    19. Once again, I fail to see how this contention helps the revenue. I must confess to considerable difficulty in appreciating how the seizure of books, documents and papers belonging to a citizen which clearly amounts to the deprivation of a valuable right of property can be continued beyond the statutory period of 180 days without there being an order by the appropriate authority in that behalf. Even if I assume in favour of the revenue that it is merely a decision and not an order, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh's case clearly requires such a decision to be communicated before a party can be bound by such a decision.

    20. Lastly, Mr. Sen drew my attention to a decision of this court in the case of Charandas Malhotra v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service, . In that case it was held, on a construction of the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, that, where a vested right has accrued to a party to obtain the return of goods seized under that section, it can only be taken away for sufficient cause after notice and after giving a hearing to the party concerned. Mr. Sen submitted that in the present case there was no vested right to obtain the return of books and documents seized and they are presumed to continue under seizure until actually released.

    21. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Sen. In my view, Section 132(8) clearly confers a right to a citizen to obtain the return of the books and documents seized under Section 132(1) unless there is a valid and proper order of retention made thereunder. Such an order, or at least, the approval of the Commissioner in respect thereof must necessarily be communicated to the person affected thereby. The above decision, which was concerned with Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which does not appear to me to be in pari materia with the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, is of no assistance to the revenue in the present case.

    22. Therefore, all the arguments advanced on behalf of the revenue fail. In the result, it must be held that since the approval of the Commissioner in the present case was not communicated to the petitioner, the order for retention of the books and documents beyond the period of 180 days was not validly and properly made under Section 132(8) of the Act, In that view of the matter, it must follow that there has been no valid retention of the books and documents in compliance with the provisions of Section 132(8) of the Act beyond the 22nd February, 1966,

    23. In the result, this application succeeds and the rule is made absolute.

    There will be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith return to the petitioner all the books, documents, papers and things seized from premises No. 62, Bentinck Street, Calcutta, 3 Bysak Dighi Lane, and 14/1, Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed according to law. There will be no order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mahabir Prosad Poddar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors.
    (Jan 9, 1970)