ition No 96 of 1972
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
I N Shroff for the appellantpetitioner
B B Ahuja and section P Nayar for respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J
This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution
Bhupendra Ratilal Thakkar petitioner No 1 is the managing partner of the other petitioner Ms Rajnikant Nareshchandra Shroff which is a partnership firm carrying on the business of shroffs and bankers
Its principal place of business is said to be at Mehmadabad with branches at Surat and Bombay
The petitioners applied for registration of the firm on April 7 1971 and had time to file their return of income upto June 30 1972
It has been claimed that the firm had large sums of money in cash as well as hundis  and other bills of exchange which formed its stock in trade and that there was no justification for thinking that it would not do what was required to be done under the law relating to income tax
The firm had a sum of Rs 1200000 as cash on January 10 1972 which is said to have been duly entered in its books of account in the Bombay branch office
The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the 892 respondents entered these premises on January 10 1972 in purported exercise of the powers conferred by section 132 and seized the sum of Rs 1200000 along with the books of account and other documents
Searches are also said to have been carried out in Mehmedabad office and the branch office at Surat and some more books of account papers and documents are said to have been seized there
The petitioners have stated that as the sum of Rs 1200000 was the stock in trade of the firm and it had not been secreted there was no justification for the seizure of the money or the books and the other documents
They have accordingly stated that the seizure was an abuse of the authority conferred by sections 132 and 132 A of the Income tax Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act and rules 112 112 A 112 B 112 C and 112 D of the Income tax Rules 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Rules
The petitioners have contended that sections 132 and 132 A of the Act are unconstitutional because they are violative of articles 14 191f and g and 311 of the Constitution
It has also been urged that the aforesaid rules are illegal as they are not backed by any legal authority
The aforesaid provisions have also been challenged on the ground that they are violative of article 14
In regard to sections 132 and 132 A of the Act the petitioners have further stated that they should be struck down as they confer naked arbitrary unguided discriminatory and uncanalised power on the executive authority
The petitioners have also prayed for the restoration of the property which has been seized by the income tax authorities
It has been pointed out in the petition that three similar writ petitions were pending in this Court including writ petition No 446 of 1971
Pooran Mal vs Director of Inspection Investigation
The respondents have admitted the search and the seizure of the property but have stated that this was done because the Commissioner of Income tax Gujarat I respondent No 1 had reasons to believe that the petitioners would not produce their books of account etc
even though they would be useful to the department for taking proceedings under the Act
It has also been stated that there was enough material before the Commissioner for exercising the power under section 1321 of the Act
The respondents have made specific averments in this connection including the averment that books of account were unreliable and that the claim that the sum of Rs 1200000 was shown as balance in the books of account was incorrect
They have also denied the allegation that any search was carried on in the Mehmedabad head office of the petitioner firm or that the sum of Rs 1200000 was kept as the firm s stock in trade or that the firm was left with no other money whatsoever
The petitioners  contention against the legality of sections 132 and 132 A of the Act and the Rules has also been controverted
It will be recalled that in their writ petition the petitioners have made a specific reference to Pooran Mal s writ petition No 446 of 1971
That case has been heard and decided by this Court on December 14 1973 and the decision has been reported in Pooran Mal 893 etc
vs Director of Inspection Investigation of Income Tax New A Delhi and others Mr Shroff has frankly conceded that the points which have been raised in this petition have been considered in that case and that he has nothing to say in regard to the validity of sections 132 and 132 A of the Act and rules 112 and 112 A of the Rules or the averments in the petition in that connection
In fact it has been held by this Court in Pooran Mal s case that it was impossible to hold that the impugned provisions were violative of articles 14 19 or 31
 All that Mr Shroff has argued is that the validity of rules 112 B and 112 C of the Rules was not the subject matter of examination in Pooran Mal s case and that it would be necessary for this Court to examine that part of the controversy as and when it is permissible to do so with reference to the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution
We have gone through rules 112 B and 112 C of the Rules
Rule 112 B relates to the release of the articles seized under section 1325 of the Act and merely provides that where in pursuance of that section any assets or part thereof have to be released the Income tax officer shall forthwith deliver the same to the person from whom custody they were seized
Rule 112 C provides for the release of the remaining assets and it is to the effect that they shall be made out or paid to the person from whose custody they were seized after the discharge of the liabilities referred to in cl i of sub section 1 of section 132 A of the Act
Both these are therefore beneficial rules and there can be no satisfactory reason for challenging their validity with reference to article 14 of the Constitution
So when the present case is not different from Pooran Mal s case there is no merit in this writ petition
It is hereby dismissed
There will however be no order as to costs
PHP Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners carry on business as Shroffs and Bankers
The Income tax Department searched various premises of the petitioners and seized a sum of Rs 12 lakhs in cash from the petitioners under section 132 and 132A of the Income tax Act
The petitioners contended that the said amount represented the stock in trade of the petitioners
The petitioners also contended that the provisions of section 132 and 132A of the Income tax Act 1961 as well as rules 112 112A 112B and 112C of the Income Tax Rules 1962 were unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 191f and g and 311 of the Constitutional
Section 132 and 132A were further challenged on the ground of conferring naked abitrary unguided discriminatory and uncanalised power on the executive authority
Dismissing the petition  HELD 1 This Court has already upheld in Pooran Mal s case the validity of section 132 and 132A as well as rules 112 and 112A 893 A  C 2 Rules 112B and 112C relate to the release of the articles seized and are therefore beneficial rules and as such cannot be challenged
893D