Statutory bar on civil suits against income-tax seizure upheld, with plaint rejected and limited liberty to file objections.

A civil suit challenging a search and seizure action under the Income-tax Act was barred because section 132(11) provided a specific objection mechanism and section 293 prohibited civil court intervention. Since the plaint in substance sought to question proceedings taken under the Act, it was liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The rejection was upheld, though limited liberty was granted to file objections before the departmental authority within 30 days, applying the principle underlying section 14 of the Limitation Act so that limitation would not be raised against those objections.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging seizure under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was barred by the statutory remedy under section 132(11) and the prohibition in section 293, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The search and seizure action was taken under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A specific objection procedure was available under section 132(11), and section 293 created a bar against suits in civil court to challenge proceedings taken under the Act. Since the plaint in substance sought to question the seizure order, the civil court could not entertain the suit and the plaint attracted rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d). The Court also noted that the petitioner had pursued the civil remedy under a bona fide mistake and, applying the principle underlying section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, granted liberty to file objections within 30 days from the date of the order, to be decided by the authorities without raising limitation.

Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint was upheld and the civil revision failed, while limited liberty was granted to file objections before the departmental authority within 30 days.

---