This isn’t Emergency era: Guj HC slams I-T raids on lawyer’s office, seeks explanation

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Thursday slammed officials of the Income Tax Department for allegedly raiding an advocate’s premises here and seizing certain digital and physical files/documents of one of his clients without a warrant. The court issued show cause notices to the officials directing them to come up with an explanation regarding the raid by December 18. The court was told that the officers also restrained the advocate from coming to court for three days.

A division bench of Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta sternly asked the counsel of the I-T Department to return the documents and make a public apology only then ‘will they be spared’.

The court also wondered how the I-T Department can take documents from a professional’s possession and which provision provides this power to the department.

“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 court issued show cause notices to seven I-T officers, Rakesh Ranjan, Dhrumil Bhatt, Neeraj Kumar Jogi, Vivek Kumar, Ranjeet Choudhary, Amit Kumar and Toral Pansuria.

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.

Appearing for Sheth, senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi 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. He said that this was not just detention but a breach of the right to privacy.

The counsel representing the I-T department, however, contended that the officials had seized the documents properly, after recording the mandatory satisfaction as per Section 132 of the I-T Act.

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 about two transactions, which the I-T Department claimed was “sensitive.”

The court also took critical note that Sheth was not issued any notice before his premises were raided by the Income Tax officers.

“You (I-T 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.