We are not in a state of Emergency to do what you want: Gujarat High Court slams IT raids on lawyer's office

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday slammed officials of the Income Tax Department at Ahmedabad for the manner in which they conducted a raid at the office and house of an advocate, while searching for a document concerning one of his clients [Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth vs Income Tax Officer Assessment Unit, Ahmedabad]..The Court was told that apart from illegally raiding the lawyer's premises, the income tax officers also seized a document and restrained him from coming to the Court for three days..A division bench of Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta opined that if action is not taken against the erring officials, then no professional would be safe in the country. "Please enlighten us what provisions empower these officers to exercise such atrocious powers. If this conduct is allowed, then no professional would be safe in this country. We aren't living in 1975 or '76, where you can go anywhere and do whatever you want to. This isn't a state of Emergency," Justice Karia remarked. The bench, therefore, issued show cause notices to seven IT officers, Rakesh Ranjan (Income Tax Officer), Dhrumil Bhatt (Inspector), Neeraj Kumar Jogi (Inspector), Vivek Kumar (Office Superintendent), Ranjeet Choudhary (Multi Tasking Staff), Amit Kumar (Inspector) and Toral Pansuria (Conducting Officer). .The Court was hearing a plea filed by an advocate Maulik Kumar Sheth, who highlighted that the Income Tax officers had raided his house and office to search for a document related to one of his client's transactions. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Sheth and pointed out that while the seizure was completed on November 3, the officials did not let his client (Sheth) come to the Court or allow his family members to go to work till November 6. The counsel representing the IT department, however, contended that the officials had seized the documents properly, after recording the mandatory satisfaction as per Section 132 of the IT Act."The law allows the officials to resort to search and seizure after recording a satisfaction that an individual, served with summons or notice, would not furnish the documents related to money, jewellery or bullion," the advocate submitted. The Court noted that the document that the officials were looking for was a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) filed by a client of the petitioner with regard to two transactions, which the IT Department claimed was "sensitive."Pertinently, the Court also took critical note that Sheth was not issued any notice before his premises were raided by the Income Tax officers. "You (IT Department) did not issue any notice to the petitioner. Then how could you record such a satisfaction? Anybody can have the copy of the MoU, then will you search everybody in the market? This is not the correct approach Mr Counsel. The Department cannot resort to such conduct," the Court said. .Further, the Court noted that while two days were earlier granted to the IT department to sort out the issue, nothing positive was done. As such, the Court said that it was inclined to initiate action against the officers. "The petitioner has nothing to do with your seizure, etc. but the manner in which it was conducted that is a problem. You have taken away all the documents. So, return all the documents to him and make a public apology. Else, we are not going to spare any one of you," Justice Karia made it clear. The IT department's counsel, in turn, urged for an adjournment till Monday so that Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas could appear in the matter and assist the Court after obtaining proper instructions. The bench, however, rejected the request. "Mr Counsel, consider the plight of the petitioner. He is your professional brother. Put yourself in his place and then think. We will take action against the officers involved otherwise everybody will be under fear," the Court said. .The Court proceeded to issue the show cause notices and granted the seven IT officers time till December 18 to file their responses."Let them file their responses in individual capacity and pay for the lawyers," the bench added before adjourning the matter.