By Parmod Kumar
New Delhi, March 9 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a public interest litigation challenging provisions of the Income Tax Act that allow tax authorities to conduct search and seizure operations without prior notice, including access to digital devices and virtual spaces, while investigating suspected tax evasion.
The petition questioned provisions under the existing Income Tax Act, 1961, and the corresponding framework under the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is scheduled to come into force from April 1, 2026. The plea expressed concern that the wide powers granted to tax authorities could be misused and may lead to harassment of taxpayers.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Court could not examine the validity of the provisions merely on the basis of apprehensions about possible misuse, adding that the provisions were intended to deal with cases of large tax evasion.
In view of the Court’s observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea so that he could approach the Central government for clarification on the contentious provisions. The Court allowed the withdrawal.
The petition had challenged provisions relating to search and seizure powers that permit income tax authorities to inspect premises and access digital records such as mobile phones, emails, computers and cloud-based data during raids. It argued that these powers were extremely broad and lacked sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse.
The plea also raised concerns that tax authorities are not required to disclose the reasons for initiating such searches. According to the petitioner, this could undermine privacy protections and create the possibility of arbitrary action.
The petitioner had sought a declaration that the provisions were unconstitutional or, alternatively, that they be interpreted in a manner consistent with the guarantees of equality and personal liberty under the Constitution.
The Court, however, declined to entertain the PIL, noting that the concerns raised were largely speculative and that adequate remedies exist in law to address any questionable exercise of power.
