1985 (4) TMI 347 - SC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Abuse of process of law for gaining undeserved advantage, validity of prohibitory orders under Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, restituting the value of goods removed under an ex parte order of injunction.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses a case where the process of law was misused to gain an undeserved advantage. Three prohibitory orders were issued under Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the first respondent regarding goods stored in three different godowns. The first respondent obtained an ex parte interim injunction from the Calcutta High Court, which allowed the removal of goods from the godowns. The first respondent then withdrew the writ petition after accomplishing the removal of goods, prompting the Deputy Director of Inspection, Madras, to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging the ex parte order of injunction.

2. The Supreme Court noted that the first respondent's strategy of obtaining the ex parte order of injunction and subsequently removing the goods from the godowns was aimed at circumventing the prohibitory orders issued by the income-tax authorities. The Court emphasized that regardless of the validity of the prohibitory orders, the first respondent's actions nullified the orders by removing the goods using the injunction.

3. The Attorney-General argued that the first respondent should restitute the value of the goods removed under the ex parte order of injunction. The Court agreed that the first respondent had abused the court's process and should not retain the advantage gained. An inquiry was ordered to determine the value of the goods removed, with an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner nominated to conduct the inquiry and submit a report to the Court by a specified date.

4. The Court adjourned the case to await the report from the Inquiry Officer and directed immediate communication of the order to the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The matter was scheduled for further proceedings on a later date.

5. Subsequently, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner submitted a report stating that 235 metric tonnes of stock were removed by the first respondent from the three godowns, valuing at Rs. 14 lakhs. The Court directed the first respondent to restitute this amount within six weeks to the petitioner to restore the situation prior to the goods' removal. The first respondent was granted the opportunity to contest the value in future proceedings, with the burden of proof on them.

6. The Court disposed of the special leave petition with the directive for the first respondent to pay the specified amount as restitution for the goods removed under the ex parte order of injunction.