P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
1. The petitioner in this petition is an assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.
2. In this petition, he has prayed for a declaration that searches of the business premises of the petitioner and the residential premises of their partners conducted by the second respondent on September 25, 1997, are illegal and void in law.
3. Sri S. P. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously submitted that the provisions of sections 62 to 68, Finance Act, 1997, provide for voluntary disclosure of income by any person; and if a search and seizure of the premises of a person/assesses is conducted, the said person/assesses is not entitled for the benefit of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), and, therefore, he would submit that till the expiry of the period fixed in the scheme, i.e., December 31, 1997, it must be held by implication that the power conferred on the authorities to search the business premises or residential premises of a person/assesses as provided under section 132 of the Act is kept in abeyance or deemed to have been suspended. In other words, it is his submission that till December, 1997, that is, the last day by which time a person/assesses can take benefit of the scheme, the search of the premises of any person/assesses should not be made. According to him, if the power to search the premises of a person is given to the authorities, it will result in discrimination as the authorities can pick any person/assesses for search and deprive such person/assesses of the benefit of the scheme.
4. I am unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though the submission prima facie appears to be attractive. The scheme in question is an enabling provision and it is in the nature of a concession given to persons to voluntarily disclose their income and take benefit of the scheme, so that they can avoid the consequences provided under the Act for suppression or non-disclosure of income. In that situation, it is not possible to take the view that till the last date fixed for the expiry of the scheme, it must impliedly be held that the power to search and seize, conferred on the authorities under section 132 is taken away. The power of search and seizure conferred on the authorities, is an independent power. The scheme is an independent scheme sponsored by the Government to enable such of those persons who have undisclosed income, to take advantage of the scheme and get certain reliefs.
5. If the scheme imposes certain conditions to avail of the benefit of the scheme, such of those persons/assessees, who intended to take advantage of the scheme, must comply with the conditions or terms of the scheme. Therefore, merely because the scheme provides that the benefit of the scheme is not available to such of the persons, whose premises have been searched, that cannot be a ground to take the view that the power of search and seizure conferred on the authorities under section 132 of the Act is either impliedly taken away or suspended till the expiry of the last date fixed for expiry of the scheme. When Parliament has made an amendment to the Act providing for the scheme and imposing certain conditions to avail of the benefit of the scheme, it must be held that Parliament was fully aware and conscious of the provisions of section 132 of the Act, which confers power of search and seizure on the officers of the Department. There is absolutely no scope or ambiguity in construing or understanding the provisions contained under sections 62 to 68 of the Act, which provide for the scheme and also the powers and provisions of section 132 of the Act. Under these circumstances, it is not permissible for the court to take the view that in view of the provisions contained in the scheme, the power conferred on the officer of the Department under section 132 of the Act, is impliedly suspended till the scheme comes to an end.
6. The contention urged by Sri Bhat can also be considered from another angle. If the contention advanced is accepted as correct, it means that the officers or authorities of the Department must be silent spectators for evasion of tax by the tax evaders, who have no intention to avail of the benefit of the scheme till December 31, 1997, i.e., the last date fixed under the scheme for disclosure. In such a situation, even if the officers of the Department have credible information that the evader of tax has huge unaccounted money, which is likely to be removed from the premises to cause disappearance of the evidence adduced against him, they must stay their hands to permit such a tax evader to contravene the provisions of the Act with impunity. Such an interpretation or contention, if accepted, would result in travesty of justice and would have the effect of frustrating the provisions of the Act. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Bhat.
7. I am also unable to accede to the submission of Sri Bhat that the power to search the premises also results in discrimination and violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under article 14 of the Constitution. The introduction of the scheme will not make any difference in so far as the power conferred on the authorities under section 132 of the Act is concerned. As stated earlier, the power conferred on the authorities under section 132 is an independent power.
8. In view of my above conclusion, I do not find any merit in this petition and this petition is liable to be rejected without issuing rule.
9. Accordingly, this petition is rejected.