9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of cash and goods by Customs Authorities 2. Notice issued by Income Tax Authorities under Section 131 3. Order passed by Additional Collector of Customs 4. Petitioner's disclosure in Income Tax return 5. Dismissal of criminal proceedings by Customs Authorities 6. Writ petition for release of seized amount 7. Intervention of Income Tax Authorities in proceedings 8. Order directing release of seized amount to Income Tax Department 9. Recalling of previous orders by Income Tax Authorities 10. Contention regarding liability for interest on seized amount Analysis: 1. The petitioner's business premises were searched by Customs Authorities in 1989, resulting in the seizure of automobile parts and Rs. 3,10,000 in cash. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and released on bail. 2. Following the seizure, Income Tax Authorities issued a notice under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the petitioner to produce books of account and other documents for the year 1989-90. 3. The petitioner complied with the notice and provided the required documents to the Income Tax authorities, including details of the seized cash amounting to Rs. 3,10,000. 4. Despite the petitioner's disclosure in the Income Tax return for the assessment year 1990-91, the Customs Authorities did not release the seized cash, even after the goods seized were returned to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of the seized amount, leading to judicial intervention and multiple orders for the release of the cash to the Income Tax Department. 6. The Income Tax Authorities intervened in the proceedings, challenging the petitioner's right to claim the seized amount and raising objections regarding the jurisdiction and legality of the notices issued. 7. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed in the writ petition based on the disclosure made in the Income Tax return, which rendered the Notice under Section 132A(1) infructuous. 8. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notice was fulfilled as the petitioner had disclosed the amount, and there was no justification for the Income Tax Authorities to continue withholding the seized cash. 9. While the court allowed the writ petition and directed the release of the seized amount to the petitioner, it declined to hold the authorities liable for interest payment, citing the absence of statutory provisions or agreements for such payment. 10. The court ordered the Special Officer to hand over the seized amount and accrued interest to the petitioner within a specified timeline, and granted a stay of operation of the judgment for two weeks upon the request of the respondents.
|
