Court custody limits tax requisition: assets seized by police cannot be validly requisitioned under section 132A.

Section 132A of the Income-tax Act cannot be used to requisition assets already in the custody of a criminal court through police seizure. Where gold was seized by police and then treated as under Magistrate's custody, the Sub-Inspector held it on behalf of the court, so the Department had no jurisdiction to issue a requisition against that custody. The proper course was to seek release of the property from the competent criminal court in accordance with law. The Kerala HC held that both the warrant under section 132A and the seizure from court custody were without jurisdiction, and the earlier decision relied on did not determine this jurisdictional question.

---

---

Issues: Whether a warrant issued under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can validly requisition gold that was already in the custody of the criminal court through the police.

Analysis: Section 132A authorises requisition of assets from an officer or authority in possession of undisclosed income or property, but it does not extend to assets held by a court through police custody after seizure under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once the gold was seized by the police and treated as being under the custody of the Magistrate, the Sub-Inspector held it on behalf of the court and not independently. In such a situation, the proper course for the Department was to move the Magistrate for release of the property in accordance with law, rather than issue a requisition against the court custody. The court also noted that the earlier decision relied on by the Department did not decide this jurisdictional issue.

Conclusion: The warrant under section 132A and the seizure from court custody were without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 132A cannot be invoked to requisition assets that are in the custody of a criminal court, and the Department must seek release from the competent court through the procedure provided by law.

---