New Delhi, February 10 The Supreme Court on Tuesday highlighted the practical difficulties faced by investigators in the digital age and stated that providing prior notice before a search and seizure could effectively end an investigation before it even begins.
The top court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the scope of search and seizure powers under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that it has the potential for misuse by authorities.
Section 132 of the Income Tax Act empowers Income Tax officials to conduct a search and seizure when they have "reason to believe" that a person has undisclosed income, assets, or documents.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria heard arguments from senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the PIL petitioner Vishwaprasad Alva, for some time, and subsequently deferred the matter for consideration after two weeks.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi highlighted the practical challenges of issuing prior notice in search and seizure cases, particularly in the digital era.
Justice Bagchi stated that providing advance notice could defeat the very purpose of an investigation, as electronic evidence can be easily destroyed.
"If a notice is given for a search and seizure, there is a potential for destroying the evidence. The best way to prevent such an investigation against digital records is to destroy the device itself," he said.
Hegde argued that the provision in question gives excessive power to tax authorities and exposes not only the alleged tax evader but also third parties to coercive action.
"Suppose you go after the lawyer, then you go after the clerk's phone. Please see, it is not only the evading assessee who is at risk. Anyone in contact is at risk, and the power is kept with the Joint Commissioner," the senior lawyer said.
The CJI stated that the statutory powers were neither uncontrolled nor unbridled.
"This is not an uncontrolled or unwieldy power. Your concerns will go," the CJI said.