TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the seizure and retention of cash and silver could be held illegal or mala fide, and whether the action taken under the Income-tax law was without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the facts disclosed a prima facie case warranting registration and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Issue (i): Whether the seizure and retention of cash and silver could be held illegal or mala fide, and whether the action taken under the Income-tax law was without jurisdiction.
Analysis: The material before the Court showed that the police claimed power to seize property under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Income-tax authorities proceeded under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, followed by orders under section 132(5) read with section 132(7) of that Act. The Court found no reliable material to hold that the seizure was actuated by mala fides, ulterior motive, or extraneous consideration. It further held that once proceedings under the Income-tax Act had been initiated, the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the income-tax authorities, and the subsequent orders could not be treated as collusive or without authority on the facts shown.
Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure and the Income-tax action failed and was rejected against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the facts disclosed a prima facie case warranting registration and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Analysis: The Court held that the allegations made by the petitioner were disputed on affidavit and were not supported by clinching material. In the absence of a prima facie case, and since the petitioner could pursue appropriate remedies before the competent criminal court, there was no basis to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Conclusion: No case was made out for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and this relief was declined against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in substance because no mala fide or prima facie illegality was established in the seizure or in the Income-tax proceedings, and no basis was shown for extraordinary investigative directions.
Ratio Decidendi: Where seizure and requisition proceedings are supported by statutory authority and no prima facie mala fides are shown, a writ court will not interfere, nor will it order CBI investigation in the absence of a prima facie case.
TaxTMI 
