9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght from the petitioner-company. So, there is no occasion to start the proceedings U/s 153 A of the Act against the petitioner No. 2, who is simply an agent of the company. Proceedings for the block period is not required in the case of the employee i.e. petitioner no.2 specially when no such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner no. 1 - Mandamus is issued for not proceeding any further against the petitioner no.2 pertaining to the block assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 153-A – However, department is always at liberty to take proceedings against the company i.e. petitioner no.1 but as per law. - Misc. Bench No. - 8223 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2013 - Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ......................" Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner no.1 got a contract of National Highway Authority of India for collecting 'Toll' at Lala Nagar Toll Plaza on National Highway 2 situated in District Sant Ravidas Nagar and the contract became effective from 09.01.2012 (24 hrs)/10.01.2012 (00hrs). The petitioner no.2 Sri Sanjay Agarwal is an employee of the petitioner no.1, as General Manager w.e.f. 8th February, 2010. On 11.01.2012, in the morning at about 10.00am, the petitioner no. 2 was going in a Innova Car bearing No. UP-32/CX-1288 to HDFC Bank, Lohata Branch, Varanasi. On the way, he was intercepted by the Police. A cash of Rs.7,15,000/- was seized from his possession. The information was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, amount, Rs.7,15,000/- was taken for the deposit. The remaining amount was in small denomination so, the same was left at the Toll Plaza. Learned counsel further submits that since the Election in U.P. were notified on 24.12.2011, which were to be conducted in phase manner from 08.02.2012 to 03.03.2012. The money was seized as there was the standard operating procedure (SOP) and the direction of the Election Commission of India to Flying Squad and Surveillance Team. Learned counsel further submits that on 15.01.2012, the Election Commission of India had clearly issued the clarification that if the cash is sent to the Bank for deposit, same shall not be seized and only a form will have to be filled up by the custodian of the curren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom.), it was observed that no proceedings under Section 132 of the Act can be carried out merely on the basis of an information to the effect that a person is in possession of a certain cash, jewellery or ornaments. Lastly, he made a request that the seized amount may kindly be refunded along with 18% interest and the proceedings under section 153-A may be dropped. On the other hand, Sri D. D. Chopra, learned counsel for the department, at the strength of the affidavit furnished by the opposite party no. 3 submits that the S.O. Rohaina Police Station, Varanasi, on 11.01.2012 intercepted a Innova Car by Static Surveillance Team. A cash amounting to Rs.7,15,000/- was found and seized from the possession of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the cash was seized on 11.01.2012. So, the benefit of the said amended rules or circular cannot be given as the same are not applicable retrospectively. In the instant case, it appears that the amount was collected at the Toll Plaza, where the fee for the Car was Rs.45/- and for the Truck/Bus, Rs.160/- per trip. From the statement furnished by the petitioner pertaining to the previous collection, it appears that the Collection was made as under: Date Denomination Quantity Amount 05/01/12 Rs.1000 45 Rs.45,000/- Rs.500 865 Rs.4,32,500/- Rs.100 428 Rs.42,800/- Rs.10 3 Rs.30/- Total : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner No. 2, who is simply an agent of the company. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the proceedings for the block period is not required in the case of the employee i.e. petitioner no.2 specially when no such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner no. 1. Hence, we set aside the proceedings of the block assessment pertaining to the petitioner no. 2 and accordingly mandamus is issued for not proceeding any further against the petitioner no.2 pertaining to the block assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 153-A. However, the proceedings for the current assessment year will continue. Further, the opposite parties are directed to release the seized amount within a period of four weeks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
