https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18590 A writ challenge to the requirement of a bank guarantee for release of seized stock was held inappropriate where the Income-tax Act provided an efficacious statutory remedy under section 132(11), especially because the dispute depended on factual issues already addressed in the section 132(5) determination. On that basis, relief under article 226 was declined. The Court also stated that when the assessed tax liability recorded under section 132(5) exceeds the value of the seized goods, the Department may retain the goods and require a bank guarantee for their release, subject to the section 132(12) order. The bank guarantee condition was therefore not illegal. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18590 A writ challenge to the requirement of a bank guarantee for release of seized stock was held inappropriate where the Income-tax Act provided an efficacious statutory remedy under section 132(11), especially because the dispute depended on factual issues already addressed in the section 132(5) determination. On that basis, relief under article 226 was declined. The Court also stated that when the assessed tax liability recorded under section 132(5) exceeds the value of the seized goods, the Department may retain the goods and require a bank guarantee for their release, subject to the section 132(12) order. The bank guarantee condition was therefore not illegal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18590