Page 79 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 525
case, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any resistance by the
family members during the course of search warranting the presence of an SRP
constable during the entire search proceedings. Therefore, it appears that the
idea behind taking assistance of the SRP constable appears to be to intimidate
and shame the family members, more so, in view of the prolonged presence of
the search party at the residential premises of the petitioner. On behalf of the re-
spondents, it has been stated that the officers concerned had asked the SRP con-
stable to stand outside the premises, but it was the petitioner’s father who re-
quested that he may-remain inside the premises. In the report dated 19-11-2019
submitted by the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, it has been stated that “From
the statement of SRP Constable Shri Savansinh Dabhi it is seen that on very first
day SRP Jawan was requested by Nathalal Chauhan, father of the petitioner to
stay within the residence as his staying outside the residence gate will give im-
pression to their neighbours and will tarnish their image.” It cannot be gainsaid
that presence of a person in uniform outside the house throughout the day, more
so, when the family members of the petitioner were literally under house arrest,
would cause a loss of reputation and raise many questions in the neighbourhood.
It would be with a view to salvage their prestige and reputation that the petition-
er’s father would have made a request that such person remain inside the house
rather than outside. It may be noted that even the police, during the course of
investigation, do not have the powers to reside at any residential premise and the
officer concerned is required to carry out investigation and thereafter, leave the
premises. The action of the respondents in continuing to reside at the residential
premises of the petitioner without any valid reason despite the fact that search
was concluded is unwarranted and uncalled for. It may be that ultimately, the
respondents might have been able to extract some material from the conversation
recorded in the mobile phone regarding where some books of account and other
documents were secreted, but the end does not justify the means and does not
validate the unauthorised and illegal action of the concerned officers. The Allah-
abad High Court in Dr. Nand Lal Tahiliani v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra)
has held that the dwelling house of a person is a high fortress. Every household-
er, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection
designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house.
Ransacking of the house and the act of taking away the property is an inroad on
citizens’ right of privacy, one of the values of civilization. Any unwarranted in-
trusion of it cannot be countenanced. Reasonable belief exists if the information
is not only trustworthy, but reasonable and sufficient in itself to warrant the con-
clusion that the provisions of Section 132 were being violated. Because if the ex-
ercise of power is bad or unlawful from its inception, then it is not validated or
changes character from its success. It would not, therefore, be asking too much
from the authorities to comply with the basic requirements of the section before
they are permitted to invade the secrecy of one’s home.
24. At this juncture, reference may be made to the report dated 19-12-
2019, that came to ultimately be submitted by the Chief Commissioner of State
Tax pursuant to the directions issued by this court vide order dated 25-10-2019.
The relevant extracts whereof are reproduced hereunder :
“Prior to 1-7-2017, the search and seizure proceedings were carried out un-
der the provisions of Section 67 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  79