9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of powers under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding requisition of case property deposited with a treasury officer under the order of a criminal court. Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of the powers vested under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the authorization to require a treasury officer to deliver case property deposited under the order of a competent criminal court. The case originated from a police raid on the petitioner's house resulting in the recovery of a substantial amount of currency notes, suspected to be stolen property. The Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the deposit of this money with the treasury officer for safe custody. However, a conflict arose when the Commissioner of Income Tax requisitioned the case property under section 132A, preventing the treasury officer from releasing the money to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the requisition by the Commissioner interfered with the due course of justice as the treasury officer held the case property under the court's orders. The petitioner argued that allowing external authorities to requisition such property would undermine the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, as enshrined in the Constitution. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the Commissioner's requisition would frustrate the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order to release the money to the petitioner, thereby impeding the administration of justice. The judgment delves into the legislative intent behind the enactment of section 132A, highlighting a divergence of opinions among High Courts regarding the seizure of assets or documents held by courts or other authorities under the previous provisions of the Income Tax Act. The court scrutinized the language of section 132A and concluded that it did not empower the Commissioner to requisition case property from courts. The court emphasized that the proper course for the authorities would have been to seek permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate or escalate the matter through the judicial hierarchy if necessary. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the requisition and directions issued by the Commissioner and other authorities. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding court orders and preventing external authorities from contravening judicial directives. The petitioner was awarded costs, and the bank guarantee previously furnished was released, marking the resolution of the legal dispute in favor of the petitioner.
|
