https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22341 HC partly allowed the writ petition. It upheld the validity of the authorisation and conduct of search u/s 132(1), but quashed successive restraint orders issued u/s 132(3) as lacking jurisdictional foundation and being used to circumvent the scheme of s.132(1), (5) and (8A). The HC held that it was practicable to seize the goods and that repeated cancellation and re-issuance of restraint orders without CIT approval unlawfully extended the restraint beyond the statutory 60-day limit. Since no order u/s 132(5) was passed within 120 days of the deemed seizure, the goods could not be retained. The Department was directed to release the restrained goods, articles and things after three weeks. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22341 HC partly allowed the writ petition. It upheld the validity of the authorisation and conduct of search u/s 132(1), but quashed successive restraint orders issued u/s 132(3) as lacking jurisdictional foundation and being used to circumvent the scheme of s.132(1), (5) and (8A). The HC held that it was practicable to seize the goods and that repeated cancellation and re-issuance of restraint orders without CIT approval unlawfully extended the restraint beyond the statutory 60-day limit. Since no order u/s 132(5) was passed within 120 days of the deemed seizure, the goods could not be retained. The Department was directed to release the restrained goods, articles and things after three weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22341