Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (5) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... maintainable - held that the suits are clearly barred by the provisions of section 293 of the Act and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against proceedings for search and seizure, which are taken under section 132 of the Income-tax Act - no infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 18-5-2005 - Judge(s) : MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA., MS. REKHA SHARMA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Dr. Mukundakam Sharma J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.121/2003 whereby the said suit was dismissed as barred under the pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oresaid order, the appellant herein filed a written representation before the income-tax authorities requesting for release of the aforesaid UTI units and NSCs, contending, inter alia, that the same cannot be retained by the Department. Even thereafter neither any order was passed on the written request of the plaintiff/appellant nor were the said assets released and, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff again filed a writ petition in this court which was registered as WP(C) No. 330 of 1992. However, before the said writ petition could be disposed of, the respondent Department released the said UTI units and NSCs in favour of the appellant on November 27, 1992. Since the said assets were released, the writ petition was disposed of as it had b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at it was incumbent and necessary for the learned trial court to deal with all the issues and aforesaid issue No. 3 could not have been taken up as the preliminary issue and decided independently of other issues. It is also submitted before us that the appellant herein is a third party, unconnected with the incident of search and seizure and, therefore, the suit filed by the appellant should have been held to be maintainable. It is also submitted that since the issue relates to payment of interest on the aforesaid UTI units and NSCs, a civil suit is always maintainable, more so when the appellant is a third party unconnected with the raid. The aforesaid submissions of counsel appearing for the appellant are refuted by Mr. R.D. Jolly, lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the maintainability of the suit under section 293 of the Income-tax Act clearly falls in the above excepted category of Order XIV, rule 2, and, therefore, could be decided without deciding the other issues. Therefore, the said plea raised cannot be entertained. The next plea that the appellant was a third party and, therefore, could not have invoked the remedy under the Act is also without merit as the appellant is seeking to establish its right within the parameters of the Income-tax Act. The relevant section is section 132B(4) and it talks of the assets seized irrespective of whom they belong to. The interest could, therefore, be claimed by the appellant in terms of the said section if the assets belonged to it. Consequently, we pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt by which the aggregate amount of money seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, as reduced by the amount of money, if any, released under the first proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1), and of the proceeds, if any, of the assets sold towards the discharge of the existing liability referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1), exceeds the aggregate of the amount required to meet the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of this section. The appellant, we feel, could have effectively invoked the said provision of the Income-tax Act for claiming interest on the assets and could have asked for payment of interest on the amount of loss, if any, that was caused to it. Such a relief could not be clai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates