9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1118 - HC - Income TaxSeizure of money - release the money in interim custody - HELD THAT - An application filed by the appellant seeking interim custody of the money was already declined and a revision petition filed against the said order is pending disposal before the Sessions Court. Evidently, now the Income Tax Department is in seisen of the matter and had already initiated 'centralization proceedings'. They are now keeping custody of the money based on an order passed by the Magistrate's Court. It is for the appellant to approach the appropriate authority in the Income Tax Department claiming ownership and release of the amount, pending finalization of the proceedings, on adducing proof with respect to its ownership. They can also purse the remedy of revision petition filed before the Sessions Court. This court, by exercising the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue any direction with respect to release of the money, at this stage of the matter, unless the matter is considered by the appropriate authority. As found by the learned Single Judge, interference by this court may be warranted only in a proper proceedings wherein the appellant challenges any order which may be passed by the authority or court concerned. We do not think that it is proper to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 226 to issue any direction with respect to release of the money, unless a proper adjudication is made by the authority or court concerned. Hence we find no illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment of the Single Judge, impugned herein. Consequently, the above writ appeal deserve no merit and the same is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority/court seeking appropriate reliefs.
Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Single Judge dated 27th January, 2020. 2. Dispute over the custody of seized money involving Income Tax Department and writ petitioner. 3. Legal remedy sought by the petitioner for release of the seized money. 4. Interpretation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court. Issue 1: Challenge against the Single Judge's Order The petitioner appealed against the Single Judge's decision, arguing that the Department of Income Tax should not retain the money indefinitely and should release it upon proper security being furnished. The petitioner cited precedents from the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Allahabad to support their contention. Issue 2: Dispute over Seized Money The High Court noted that the money seized by the police was in the custody of the Income Tax Department based on an order from the Magistrate's Court. The Income Tax Department had initiated 'centralization proceedings' against the accused individuals. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Department for claiming ownership and release of the money, as the Department was in possession of the funds pending finalization of proceedings. Issue 3: Legal Remedy for Release of Seized Money The court emphasized that the petitioner could pursue the remedy of a revision petition filed before the Sessions Court and approach the appropriate authority in the Income Tax Department to claim ownership and seek release of the amount. The High Court clarified that it could not issue any direction for the release of the money under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless a proper adjudication was made by the relevant authority or court. Issue 4: Interpretation of Powers under Article 226 The High Court concurred with the Single Judge's decision, stating that interference by the court would be warranted only in a proper proceeding where the appellant challenges an order passed by the authority or court concerned. The court held that it was not appropriate to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue any direction for the release of the money without proper adjudication by the relevant authority. In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality, error, or impropriety in the Single Judge's judgment and dismissed the writ appeal, granting the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate authority or court for seeking suitable reliefs in the matter.
|
