https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16629 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. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:10:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16629 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16629