Court voids encashments made without authority, grants relief to assessee under KVS Scheme.

The court found that the 1st respondent, not the 2nd respondent, encashed the seized IVP's without authority, acting contrary to law. The encashments were deemed void as they were not in accordance with statutory provisions. The court granted relief by setting aside previous judgments, quashing certain documents, and directing the 3rd respondent to reevaluate the application under the KVS Scheme in compliance with the law. The writ appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the encashments of seized IVP's were carried out by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondentRs.
2. Whether the encashments of the seized IVP's were in accordance with lawRs.
3. Whether the encashed amounts under the IVP's were liable to be adjusted. If so, for which assessment yearsRs.
4. What reliefs are the assessee entitled toRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the encashments of seized IVP's were carried out by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondentRs.

The main argument was that the IVP's were encashed by the 1st respondent without authority. The learned Single Judge found that the 2nd respondent-assessing officer carried out the encashments, with the 1st respondent only coordinating. However, documents (Ext.P2 and Ext.P3) clearly showed that the 1st respondent initiated and directed the encashment. The court concluded that the 1st respondent encashed the IVP's, setting aside the Single Judge's finding.

Issue 2: Whether the encashments of the seized IVP's were in accordance with lawRs.

Section 132(9A) of the Act mandates that the authorized officer must hand over seized assets to the assessing officer within 15 days. The 1st respondent, who conducted the search and seizure, should have handed over the assets by 22.01.1995. The first encashment request was made on 29.03.1995, indicating that the 1st respondent acted without authority as he was functus officio after 15 days. The court found the encashments were contrary to law and void.

Issue 3: Whether the encashed amounts under the IVP's were liable to be adjusted. If so, for which assessment yearsRs.

The court found that adjustments of IVP's were illegal as they were made before the determination of tax liability, contrary to Section 132B. The learned Single Judge's finding that adjustments were made before the assessee became a defaulter was upheld. The court also rejected the reliance on Ext.R3(a) letter, which was not a blanket authority for encashment and adjustment. The encashments and adjustments were not in accordance with statutory provisions.

Issue 4: What reliefs are the assessee entitled toRs.

The court set aside the learned Single Judge's judgment, quashed Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 series, and partially quashed Ext.P5. It restored the status quo ante as on the date of application under the KVS Scheme. The 3rd respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on the application for the benefit under the KVS Scheme, in accordance with law. The writ appeal was allowed.

---