https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426724 The court held that the writ-applicant firm was not entitled to a refund of the seized cash as it was rightfully appropriated by the Income Tax Department towards Bhuraram's tax liabilities. The court found that the department's actions were in compliance with the legal procedures under the Income Tax Act and based on Bhuraram's admission of the cash being his undisclosed income. Emphasizing the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the court rejected the writ-application, stating that no substantial injustice or violation of jurisdictional principles warranted interference. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2022 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426724 The court held that the writ-applicant firm was not entitled to a refund of the seized cash as it was rightfully appropriated by the Income Tax Department towards Bhuraram's tax liabilities. The court found that the department's actions were in compliance with the legal procedures under the Income Tax Act and based on Bhuraram's admission of the cash being his undisclosed income. Emphasizing the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the court rejected the writ-application, stating that no substantial injustice or violation of jurisdictional principles warranted interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426724