https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385238 A warrant of authorization under section 132A(1) was challenged on the ground that the competent authority lacked material to form the requisite belief for requisition of seized cash. The HC held that writ interference is limited to cases where statutory preconditions are absent, the action is mala fide, or the recorded satisfaction lacks relevant material. Here, the authority had information on the cash seizure, statements of the persons carrying it, the petitioner's statement, and follow-up enquiries on source of funds. As the explanations were inconsistent and unsupported by documents, the file and satisfaction note showed a prima facie basis for belief, and the Court declined to reappraise the material. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385238 A warrant of authorization under section 132A(1) was challenged on the ground that the competent authority lacked material to form the requisite belief for requisition of seized cash. The HC held that writ interference is limited to cases where statutory preconditions are absent, the action is mala fide, or the recorded satisfaction lacks relevant material. Here, the authority had information on the cash seizure, statements of the persons carrying it, the petitioner's statement, and follow-up enquiries on source of funds. As the explanations were inconsistent and unsupported by documents, the file and satisfaction note showed a prima facie basis for belief, and the Court declined to reappraise the material. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385238