Cause Title : Union Of India vs M/s. Magnum Steel Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 9597-9599 Of 2011, Supreme Court
Date of Judgment/Order : 02.03.2023
Corum : S. Ravindra Bhat & Dipankar Datta, JJ
Citied:
- State of Rajasthan vs. Rehman, AIR 1960 (SC) 210
- Durga Prasad Etc. vs. H.R. Gomes, AIR 1966 (SC) 1209
Background
The respondent’s premises were subject to search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Revenue dept. which had drawn up a Panchnama listing out materials and documents seized in the course of the proceedings. The said s & s were appeal against by the respondent and the High Court had quashed the initiation of search and seizure proceedings and all consequential proceedings, launched against the respondent/assessee. Hence this appeal.
Judgment
The Supreme Court observed that when the High Court had called for the original record, the revenue had produced the warrant of seizure which had mentioned about some information, placed before the concerned officer leading the officer to conclude the goods were liable to confiscation existed. He, therefore, had authorized the search. However, the file itself did not contain any material to disclose what was placed before the officer – nor was there any noting on it to link the nature of the materials (however briefly) with the decision to search to legitimize the search proceedings. The Revenue Dept. had rather contended that there were intelligence reports which resulted in the authorized official concluding that a search was essential but could not produce any material to confirm that such intelligence report existed.
The SC held that the Section 105 of the Customs Act confers power to search premises if the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs “has reasons to believe” that goods liable to confiscation or documents relevant for such proceedings are secreted in any place. In such event, the search proceedings can be authorized by the Assistant Commissioner or other official.
The basic premise of Section 105, and indeed search proceedings is the reasonable belief that some objective material exists on the official record to trigger searches. The person authorizing the search must express his satisfaction that the material is sufficient for him to conclude that search is necessary; further there should exist something to show what is such material. The mere recording that the person concerned is satisfied, without the supportive materials, therefore, is insufficient to trigger a lawful search.
In the present case the concerned official who authorized the search did not refer to any information nor indeed any report on the record which was produced before the High Court. The SC was satisfied that there is no merit in the appeals which were accordingly dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment