TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities in Bombay rather than in Delhi when the search and seizure operation was orchestrated from Delhi and the silver bars were seized in Delhi – Interest is not payable. - 5108 of 1993 - - - Dated:- 24-10-2007 - MADAN B. LOKUR and DR. S. MURALIDHAR JJ. Chetan Sharma, with J. P. Gupta and Rikky Gupta, for the petitioners. J. R. Goel, fot the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. - Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm while Petitioner No.2 is one of its partners. 2. It appears that on 15th/16th October, 1971 the Income Tax Authorities [particularly the Director of Inspection (Investigation)] conducted a search and seizure operation in the residential as well as busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax at Bombay (and not at Delhi) asking for payment of interest on the seized assets. It may be noted in this regard that even though the search and seizure proceedings were conducted at the instance of the Income Tax Department in Delhi and the silver bars were seized in Delhi, the partnership firm made a representation to the Income Tax Department at Bombay. Learned counsel for the Petitioners was unable to explain this except to say that because the partnership firm was being assessed at Bombay, a request was made to the Income Tax Department in Bombay for payment of interest. 7. Be that as it may, by a letter dated 28th February, 1992, the partnership firm was informed that no interest could be paid on the seized assets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d there was no valid justification for the Petitioners to approach the Income Tax Authorities in Bombay for redressal. 12. Thirdly, the claim of the Petitioners is essentially for recovery of money and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is hardly an appropriate remedy for this. The Petitioners can, if at all, file a civil suit for recovery of money where they would have to justify their demand for such a huge amount of interest. Under Article 226 of the Constitution we cannot look into these factual issues. This is quite apart from the fact that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is an inappropriate remedy for recovery of money. 13. Finally, we are of the view that the Respondents are not entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay interest thereon if the conditions of Sections 132B of the Act are fulfilled but this provision is clearly inapplicable to bullion or jewellery that is so seized. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was unable to point out any decision which would support his point of view and we think that that is so because the language of Section 132B(4) is quite clear in this regard. 16. It may be mentioned that learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that action under Section 132 of the Act was not taken against the partnership firm but against Puran Mal (individual) but we need not enlarge the scope of the controversy before us particularly since there is no reason at all for the Petitioners to get the relief that they have pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding interest. The main issue in this case, which arose out of a statutory appeal filed under the Act was whether an assessee would be entitled to compensation by the Income Tax department for delay in paying to the assessee the amount admittedly due to it. The assessee was admittedly entitled to a refund of tax and that was delayed by the department and it was under these circumstances that the assessee in that case sought payment of interest. This decision is not at all apposite to the facts of the present case. 20. As already noted above, the present case is one under Article 226 of the Constitution and not as a result of statutory and adjudicatory proceedings under the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|