https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9431 The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner-firm was not genuine, and the search and seizure were lawful. The court found discrepancies in the petitioner's refund claim, noting the firm's non-existence and illegitimate claims. It held that procedural requirements were met, denying the petitioner's claims of defects. As the warrant of authorization was not provided, the court lacked jurisdiction to quash it. The court directed the refund amount to the Revenue, vacating the fixed deposit order. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9431 The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner-firm was not genuine, and the search and seizure were lawful. The court found discrepancies in the petitioner's refund claim, noting the firm's non-existence and illegitimate claims. It held that procedural requirements were met, denying the petitioner's claims of defects. As the warrant of authorization was not provided, the court lacked jurisdiction to quash it. The court directed the refund amount to the Revenue, vacating the fixed deposit order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9431