Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
The Income Tax Department was criticised by the Gujarat High Court on December 7th for allegedly conducting a raid on an advocate’s property and taking certain digital and physical files and documents (belonging to the client) without a warrant. The court directed the department’s negligent officials to provide a justification for the raid. A double-judge bench consisting of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral Mehta questioned the IT Department’s Counsel to restore the papers and issue a public apology, saying that only then “will they be spared,” labelling the department’s stance as “unexpected”.
The Court also questioned what provision gives the IT Department the authority to seize documents that a professional has on other people while acting in that position, as well as how the IT Department can do so.
The MOU pertaining to two transactions that the advocate had in his official position was the document that the Department was requesting. Furthermore, the Court noted that this mentality will prevent anyone in the nation from carrying out their duties without fear, emphasising that the department’s approach to search and raid will negatively impact the public since everyone will be “under fear” -“No professional will be safe in this country if this is allowed to happen. This is not 1976-77. This is not a state of emergency where anybody can do anything, what you like…Are they (IT Dept officials) police officers who will collect documents especially documents which an advocate holds in a professional capacity like documents of your client? Atrocious power exercised”.
The Court and the Department were not authorised to carry out searches of this nature in cases where an advocate’s documents that he maintained in his official capacity were found.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of the petitioner, claiming that the advocate was not only detained but also had his or her right to privacy violated since the search of the advocate’s home and office finished on November 3rd morning and the Advocate was unable to appear in court until November 6th.
Considering the submissions presented to the bench, the High Court instructed each of the concerned IT Department representatives to submit their responses individually.