2000 (10) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Court Rules Against Ex Parte Relief in Tax Cases

Union of India Versus Natwerlal M. Badiani

The court held that ex parte interim relief cannot be granted without providing the Government or public officer an opportunity to show cause as required ... Search And Seizure, Suit, Notice Issues Involved:1. Legality of ex parte injunction orders without notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).2. Jurisdiction of civil courts concerning proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Compliance with Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Ex Parte Injunction Orders Without Notice Under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):The core issue was whether a court could grant ex parte interim or ad interim relief without giving the Government or a public officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause, as required by Section 80 of the CPC. The court examined the historical context and legislative amendments to Section 80, emphasizing its mandatory nature. Section 80(1) requires a notice to be served on the Government or public officer before instituting a suit, while Section 80(2) allows for urgent suits without notice but mandates that no relief be granted without giving the Government or public officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause.The judgment referenced the Privy Council decision in *Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujarathi v. Secretary of State for India* and the Supreme Court decision in *Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India*, both underscoring the mandatory nature of Section 80. The court concluded that in suits where Section 80 applies, ex parte interim relief cannot be granted without providing the Government or public officer an opportunity to show cause.2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Concerning Proceedings Under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The petitions challenged the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits related to search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court highlighted that Section 293 of the Income-tax Act expressly bars suits in civil courts to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under the Act. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court decision in *CIT v. Parmeshwari Devi Sultania*, which held that the substance of the suit must be considered, and suits challenging actions under the Income-tax Act are barred.The court concluded that the civil suits in question were barred by Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, as they sought to challenge the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Section 132 of the Act.3. Compliance with Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The court reiterated that Section 293 of the Income-tax Act prohibits suits against the Government or its officers for actions taken in good faith under the Act. The civil suits filed were directly challenging the search and seizure operations authorized under Section 132, which falls under the purview of Section 293. The court emphasized that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain such suits, and the proceedings were deemed illegal and without jurisdiction.Conclusion:The court answered the referred question in the negative, holding that courts cannot grant ex parte interim or ad interim relief in suits where Section 80 of the CPC applies without giving the Government or public officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause. Both Special Civil Applications were allowed, and the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 1196 of 1986 and Civil Suit No. 1197 of 1986, including the related miscellaneous applications and ex parte injunction orders, were declared illegal and without jurisdiction. The suits were dismissed, and the ex parte injunction orders were set aside.